Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts --- Olcott is an Admitted Liar

On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-19 12:36:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/19/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-18 14:38:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/18/2024 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 15:55:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/17/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 07:25:52 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>

Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott:

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.
>
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 its own line 06 and halt.
>
*This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
>

>
Note that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', but he is unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 'my belief'.

>
A "proven fact" without a proof is not worse than a "verified fact"
without a verification.
>

>
*I updated my wording*
It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
of the semantics of the C programming language.

>
No, it is not. I would know if it were.
>

>
If you do not understand that a single valid counter-example
would refute my claim then you don't know enough about proofs.

>
Your claim
>

>
Most people to not know the difference between deductive proof
]and inductive evidence.

>
Most people don't read comp.theory so here we needn't care.
>

>
If anyone is trying to prove me wrong they
must first understand what an actual proof is.
>
Several people here seem to think that ad hominem personal
attacks and insults are the basis for a valid rebuttal.
>
Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
{D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}

>
No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that once you allow H to not be required to be correct, that we can then have a trivial function that is "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).
>

 *There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*
*There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*
*There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*

 

>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E
>

It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
of the semantics of the C programming language.

>
is a little unclear about the meaning of "It" but I think it
is false for any reasonable interpretation. Can I call myself
a counter-example?

>
>

>

>