Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06

On 5/25/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 4:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:

As soon as you first hit the strawman deception change-the-subject
fake rebuttal I pint this pout and erase everything else that you say.
>
*Thread renamed to be 100% precisely accurate*
Any divergence from the subject of the thread gets boilerplate reply.
>

>
In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words, admitting that you plan to change them.
>

>
<snip so that *Usenet Article Lookup* finds the whole message>
http://al.howardknight.net/
>
Not at all. I simply utterly reject the dishonest dodge
of the strawman deception change-the-subject rebuttal.
>
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       }
>
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
was being referred to.
>
*Correct Simulation Defined*
    This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
    correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
    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); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03 of
D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless recursive
simulation.
>
>

In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words, admitting that you plan to change them.
>

>
Not at all and you cannot show that I disagree with the above
words to the slightest trace of any degree what-so-ever.
>
*Liar Liar Pants on fire? Will assume so until proven otherwise*
>

>
A don't say that you disagree woth them,

>
 >>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words,
YES YOU DID, LOOK AT YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE.
>

>
No, I accept that you want to use your stipulated definition of the words,

>
Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>

>
>
Did you not read what I wrote?
>
You need to agree to the implications of those definitions before we can go on.

 OFF-TOPIC PLEASE DO NOT DIVERGE *AT ALL* FROM
THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
 Until you
(1) Unequivocally agree with
     or
(2) Attempt to directly refute
THE EXACT WORDS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
 *ALL OF YOUR WORDS WILL BE IGNORED AND ERASED*
 

I guess you are proving you don't want an honest dialog, because you are unwilling to accept the consequences of your deffinition.
And, you don't understand the meaning of the term-of-art of being "On topic".
You are just proving that you are just bent on being deceptive.
Since you are stating you are closing the discussion, I will assume that you ACCEPT my conditions, repeated below:
The implications of your specifications are:
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status.
3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the concept of the behavior of a machine, and
4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in the Linz or Sipser proofs.
5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone will agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your lies.