Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###

[ Followup-To: set ]

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

On 5/11/2024 4:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

On 5/10/2024 1:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

On 5/10/2024 12:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

[ .... ]

I've tried out your much spammed code on GCC (see below).  It is
clear you have never built or run this code, which ironically
can't reach Line 06.  It can't even reach line 00.

Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an
example of D simulated by H:

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

*That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the
detailed* *steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are
probably liars*

You have said, or at least implied that your code fragment is
runnable.  I think you are the liar, here.

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

I removed the line numbers from your code, added in a "pointer to
int function" type (you should really learn how to do this
yourself) and ran the result on GCC.

This is the file I submitted:

typedef int (* ptr) (void);
int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
int D(ptr x)
{
       int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
       if (Halt_Status)
           HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
       H(D,D);
}

.  These are the diagnostics generated by GCC:

olcott.c:2:18: error: redefinition of parameter ‘x’
       2 | int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
         |              ~~~~^
olcott.c:2:11: note: previous definition of ‘x’ with type ‘ptr’ {aka ‘int
(*)(void)’}
       2 | int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
         |       ~~~~^
olcott.c: In function ‘H’:
olcott.c:4:1: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘{’ token
       4 | {
         | ^
olcott.c:12:1: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘{’ token
      12 | {
         | ^
olcott.c:15: error: expected ‘{’ at end of input

Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.

The code for D is so full of errors that it cannot demonstrate anything,
beyond a lack of proficiency in C in its author.

*I have fully operational code, yet this is*
*not the code that the words below refer to*

Why, then, have you been spamming the group with faulty code for so long?
Why did you not first check it and correct it before posting it?

When I brought up the issue before, you "answered", in

From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 10:47:00 -0500

, that

There is no actual error in these lines of code.
int main()
{
    H(D,D);
    return 0;
}

.  Why did you answer so evasively?  Why did you not admit then that the
code was faulty, and thank me for pointing it out?

I had to change the wording for people that intentionally
try as hard as possible to make sure to interpret my words
incorrectly.

There are no such people on this newsgroup.  Most people here try to
answer your posts directly and honestly.  You are the poster who attempts
to mislead, obfuscate, and evade.

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.

Why are you doing this again?  Simple software engineering shows that the
above code is so broken as to be unusable.  Why don't you correct it
first before posting it yet again?

*above template ---not code, code template*
*I said it was a code template*
*You knew it was a code template and pretend to not know*

Now I understand why you write vaguely.

I did not write vaguely you simply did not bother to pay attention to
me clear words.

Words like "simulation", you mean, where you have constantly refused to
tie yourself down to a specific meaning.

 It's so that you can tell
untruths without lying, as you see it.  You're like a politician in that
respect; you never commit yourself to anything, always leaving a get-out
for when the truth emerges.

You strongly implied, perhaps without actually saying, that that spammed
fragment was actual code - you denigrated critics of it by saying they
didn't have enough expertise in the C language.

*Any H/D pair matching the above template*

Given the template is chock full of errors, what does it actually mean to
"match the template"?

*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*

We don't know what you mean, exactly, by "simulated", particularly of a
function H which is chock full of errors.

*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*

It cannot reach its line 00, given it won't even compile.

You are simply dishonest.

No, not at all.  We can all see who is the dishonest one in this
exchange, and it's not me.

You referred to the code's execution trace.  Your actual words were:

Perhaps you do understand what an execution trace is and
disparage my work without even looking at it?

This was presumably a "virtual" execution trace, i.e. totally
fictitious.  Maybe you meant the ambiguous "it" to refer to "my work"
rather than the non-existent execution trace.

Maybe you don't class such untruths as lying.  I do, and I think most
other posters here do too.

Again, why don't you correct that "template" and turn it into correct C?
Are you capable of doing that?

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).