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

On 6/17/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-16 17:44:44 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/16/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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:

>

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".

>
Indeed, you do.
>

I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
everyone's heads.

>
Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's just a
random program.
>

When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
rhetorical question.

>
The question has nothing to do with C programming.
>

>
typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
int H(ptr P, ptr I);
>
int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
Unless I make every single detail 100% explicit false
assumptions always slip though the cracks.

 Haven't you already noticed that if you make every single detail
100% explicit false assumptions slip through the cracks anyway?
 

It will only address that here
[Simulating termination analyzers for dummies]
It has all of the reasoning in one place not strewn
about here and there.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer