Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

On 6/15/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.jun.2024 om 16:48 schreef olcott:

On 6/15/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
Is this the new definition of "pathological"?

>
*It is the same thing that I have been saying all along*
>
00   typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
01
02   int HH(ptr P, ptr I);
03
04   void DDD(int (*x)())
05   {
06     HH(x, x);
07     return;
08   }
09
10   int main()
11   {
12     HH(DDD,DDD);
13   }
>
Line 12 main()
   invokes HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>
*REPEAT UNTIL outer HH aborts*
   Line 06 simulated DDD()
   invokes simulated HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>
DDD correctly simulated by HH never reaches its own "return"
instruction and halts.

>
So, you agree that you are changing definitions.

 Not at all. The original definition still applies when it
is made more generic.
 01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
 D correctly simulated by H has isomorphic behavior to DDD
correctly simulated by HH, both get stuck in recursive
simulation.
 

They only get stuck, if HH itself gets stuck, and such an HH is then not a DECIDER.
Reminder of the FACT you keep of trying to forget, is that if HH is to be a "Halt Decider" its answer needs to match the actual behavior of the direct execution of the input. And, if it isn't a Halt Decider, it can't be disproving the proof you claim to be working on.
All you are doing is prove that you don't understand your definitions.