Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 5/1/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
final state.

>

Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
can't.

>

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
....

>

It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.

>

.... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
halting.

>

Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

>

int H(ptr x, ptr y); // 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 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

>
Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.
>

>
Expert's in the C language could directly confirm that no D
simulated by H can possible reach past its own line 3. Everyone
here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand this
so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>

>
Nope, I have shown some H's that can get there.
>

>
I just proved otherwise in my prior reply. You can tell which one
was my prior reply because they have time/date stamps in the order
that they were answered.

  Nope. You are just proving to be a liar as you made NO comments to the entire section about what I was describing, even though you claimed to have addressed it.
 Of course, in that post you sidetracked yourself.
 

(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
If you don't directly address those words right here then I
will ignore everything after them.

 

>

>

On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
 > Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the
 > program is repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate
 > that it will never reach the final "ret" - indeed,
 > it won't even get to the infinite loop identified above.

>
Yes, an H that blindly simulates like that gets into an infinite loop.
>

>
This was the very first time anyone agreed with that verified fact.

 Nope.
 Just shows how much of a pathological liar you are.
 

>

The problem is that when you change H to not do that, the D it needs to correctly answer to be the counter example changes, so that logic doesn't apply.
>

>

(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.

>
That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and when,

>
Two experts in the C programming language and two
people with masters degrees in computer science.
Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>
If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>

>
So, you believe fallicous arguements are valid.
>
In other words, you don't believe in the use of correct logic.

>
Try to show another counter-example this time re-read what I said
however many times needed so that you are actually addressing the
actual words that I actually said.

 Nope. You losts your chance, I have claimed the right of claiming you wrong until you actually refute my example since you have shown yourself to LIE about what you have said.
 

>
When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>

 SHouldn't take that many times through if you actuall know what you are doing.
 Yes, perhaps a couple, but 15 indicates a fundamental lack of the foundations.

The VISA change document of the VISA c
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer