Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt

Op 31.mei.2024 om 20:22 schreef olcott:

On 5/31/2024 11:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.mei.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott:

On 5/31/2024 10:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.mei.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott:

On 5/31/2024 2:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.mei.2024 om 00:01 schreef olcott:

On 5/30/2024 4:54 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 30 May 2024 09:55:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

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 left hand-side are line numbers of correct C code.
This code does compile and does conform to c17.
>
Everyone with sufficient knowledge of C can easily determine that D
correctly emulated by any *pure function* H (using an x86 emulator)
cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt.

Yeah, of course not, if H doesn’t halt.
>

>
To actually understand my words (as in an actual honest dialogue)
you must pay careful attention to every single word. Maybe you
had no idea that *pure functions* must always halt.
>
Or maybe you did not know that every computation that never reaches
its own final state *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops running because
it is no longer simulated.

>
Since the claim is that H is also a computation, it holds for H, as well. That means that H *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops running because it is no longer simulated.
>

>
*pure function H definitely halts you are confused*
>

>
You can assume a unicorn, but that does not make it existent. You can assume a simulating H that is a pure function and halts, but that does not make them existent. The set of such H is empty.

>
You simply ignored my proof that you are wrong.
>
D correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach
its own final state at line 06 in any finite number of steps of
correct simulation.

>
I do not ignore your claim. It is in fact exactly your claim that D does not reach line 04 that proves that the simulation of HH does not reach its own final state.
>
HH correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own final state and return to D in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.
>

*HH correctly simulated by HH*
*HH correctly simulated by HH*
*HH correctly simulated by HH*
*HH correctly simulated by HH*
*HH correctly simulated by HH*
 That is the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal
 *THAT DOES CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS*
*DD correctly simulated by HH*
*DD correctly simulated by HH*
*DD correctly simulated by HH*
*DD correctly simulated by HH*
*DD correctly simulated by HH*
 cannot possibly reach its own final state and return to D in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.
 

It is not dishonest and not a change of subject.
The correct simulation of D includes the correct simulation of HH, because HH is part of D.
The only reason why the simulation of D does not continue with line 04 is that the correct simulation of HH by HH does not halt. Why do you refuse to accept this simple fact?
You claim that HH halts, but at the same time you claim that D does not reach line 04. Don't you see how contradictory these two claims are? If HH would halt, then the correct simulation of HH would halt and then the correct simulation of D would continue with line 04. Why can't you see that it is the heart of the subject?