Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation

On 5/22/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/22/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:

>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
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       }
>
>
I am just trying to get people to understand that for the infinite set
of H/D pairs matching the above template where D is correctly simulated
by pure function H that no D correctly simulated by pure function H can
possibly reach its own line 06 and halt because every D remains stuck in
recursive simulation.

>
But it CAN reach its final state when run or actaully completely and correctly simulated by a real simulator (and not changed)
>
Your problem is that you definition of "Correct Simulation" and that of a simulation that actually says something about non-halting are different, so you can't use yours to reason about the other.
>

*You are violating this definition*
 *CORRECT SIMULATION DEFINED*
   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.
 

Nope, YOU are violating the definition of Correct Simulation that relates a simulation to machine behavior.
Thus, you can claim all you want about your simulations, but you have FOREVER disconnected your concept of simulation from the behavior of the machine simulated, so you have no path to talking about "Halting".
Only by LYING and using contradictory definitions at the same time can you even try.
You are just proving you don't understand how logic works.
You are just proving that your native tounge is the LIE.
That is why you need to formally and completely define your term, so that your errors can be pointed out and deflected BEFORE you get an agreement on a statement you can twist.