Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2

On 5/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 15:34:48 +0000, olcott said:

Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
(and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
disregard for the truth.

>
No, it does not. A different kind of proof is sufficient to meet
the standard, and even a good justification of another kind.
>

 *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
*I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
*I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
 The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
semantics of the C programming language:
 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
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   return 0;
13 }
 In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
specified by the x86 instructions of D.
 This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
 Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
 keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01
Line 02
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
 Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
 The key thing to note is that no D simulated by any H of every H/D pair
specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
 The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
 

Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is.
And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.