Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

On 6/9/2024 10:11 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 09:04:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
definition of correct simulation.

And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

 

typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>
void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
{
    P(I); return;
}

This is not a simulator.
 

void DDD(int (*x)())
{
    HHH(x, x); return;
}

This is not a decider.
 

int main()
{
    HHH(DDD,DDD);
}
>
In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
thus never halt.

Thus are not deciders.
 

When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return statement, AKA
     simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until
     HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop
     running unless aborted

And aborts it, making it behave differently - namely, terminating.
 

My latest annotation of this
  [Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt]
addresses your false assumption about what halting means.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer