Re: Termination analyzer defined ---RICHARD IS WRONG !!!

On 5/18/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 3:52 AM, immibis wrote:

On 16/05/24 16:08, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

It is easy to try a specifc program with a specific input and see
what happens,

>
*The prior answer from the "received view" has always been no one knows*
>
It has always been the case in the "received view" that because the
pathological input D was defined to contradict every value that its
termination analyzer H returns that both YES and NO are the wrong
answer from H.

>
You can run it and see.
>
If it halts, then the right answer to "does it halt?" is yes.
>
If it doesn't halt, then the right answer to "does it halt?" is no.

 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
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 }
 Explaining how this is incorrect requires the prerequisite knowledge
that no D correctly simulated by any H of every H/D pair specified by
the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
 

I.E, it requires having as prerequisite knowledge the acceptance of a provenly false statemet. Thus proving that you are nothing more than an ignorant pathologica liar.
Let H be:
int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
   static int flag = 0;
   if (flag) return 0l
   flag = 1;
/* THen you normal H with the skipping of the simulation of H disabled, so you DO simulate into H, and all the way to line 06 above */
}
Thus, you are proven to be a liar that just doesn't have the requist knowledge of C, or logic, or truth to be able to make the claim you do, as you have just proven yourself to be a pathologica liar.