Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2

On 6/16/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-15 13:14:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/15/2024 7:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-15 03:07:14 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
  > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to answer.

Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D correctly
simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D)
does not make this false assumption true.

 

You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that differs from
the behaviour of its input "correct".
>

 I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
everyone's heads. When I ask what your C programming skill
level is, this *is not* a rhetorical question.
 00   typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
01
02   int H0(ptr P);
03
04   void DDD()
05   {
06     H0(DDD);
07     return;
08   }
09
10   int main()
11   {
12     H0(DDD);
13   }
 Line 12 main()
   invokes H0(DDD); that simulates DDD()
 *REPEAT UNTIL outer H0 aborts*
   Line 06 simulated DDD()
   invokes simulated H0(DDD); that simulates DDD()

But the simulation you show doesn't show that, the simulation needs to show the instructions that H0 is using to do the simulation.

 DDD correctly simulated by H0 never reaches its own "return"
instruction and halts.
 

H is only asked about the behavior of D simulated by H and is
not asked about the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>

If H is a simulator, it must simulate the execution of D(D).

 I have proven this to be a false assumption and people
maintain this false assumption entirely on the basis
that my proof is over their heads.

Nope, you prove that you LIE.
You have admitted that the simulation you (barely) looked at wasn't the simuation you claimed to have looked at, and even a moderate looking at it reveals it to not be the simulation you claimed (It starts at the wrong point, something never simulated by the simulator)
And you have admitted that you have just recently figured out how you might be able to get the trace you claimed, but have never actually shown such a trace.
So, you have not "proven" that they differ, and your claim is based on things that the simulation doesn't show.

 

H does not compute the answer to "What does H say about its input?",
since it could answer anything then.
It makes no sense to call a wrong answer the correct answer to a different
question.
>