Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt

On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:

typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01   void HHH(ptr
P, ptr I)
02   {
03     P(I);
04     return;
05   }
06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
08   {
09     HHH(x, x);
10     return;
11   }
12 13   int main()
14   {
15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
16   }
17

>

In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
thus never halt.
Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
its simulated input that this simulated input halts.

>
You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion is
before proceeding.

Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.

>
OK then we are done talking.
>

You instead could explain how you
can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution "correct".
Or why H and HH are different.
>

>
I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>
I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
result in any mutual agreement.
>

>
I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so you are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>

>
We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
>

>
So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to clearify the meaning of it.
>

>
When someone "questions what you mean by something"
by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.
>

>
I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several times after being corrected.
>
That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.
>

 THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
 

Then stop Lying!
Repeatedly repeating a statement that others have pointed out the errors in, without rebuting the errors pointed out (by going deeper and showing an actual acceptable basis of the statement, not just restating it) is lying by the reckless disregarding of the truth.
Example of this:
That the correct simulaton by your own definiton of your input when it does a call to H should not go into showing another copy of the simulaiton of that same input, but instead into the steps of the simulator doing that simulation.
Anything else is just a lie per your definition.
That Halting means anything other than the behavior of the actual machine directly executed, or some other method that gives the exact same answer.
Anything other than that is just a lie per the definiotn of the Computation Theory.
That Godel's "G" is just a statement of the liar's paradox.
Or any of a multitude of errors you make that you can not actualy show real cause for you to be correct (and not just that is has to be as that is the only thing that makes sense)/