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

On 6/2/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/2/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-01 18:34:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/1/2024 1:28 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 31 May 2024 09:25:40 -0500 schrieb 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       }

>

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.

>

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*

The fuck? If H halts, then D can definitely reach past line 4.
>

>
*Trying to get away with changing the subject away from this*
*is known as the strawman deception*
>
DD 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.

>
Your "DD correctly simulated by pure function HH" is an attempt
to deceive. Otherwise you would just say "DD" because that is
what the phrase means.
>

 It turns out that "that is what the phrase means" is merely a false
assumption. No one ever explored the details of a simulating halt
decider ever before because everyone rejected simulation out-of-
hand without review. This has keep this divergence of behavior hidden
until my 2016 discovery.
 

Nope, shows you are either ignorant of the meaning of the words or just intentionally being deceptive.
You are just WRONG about no one ever exploring the details of simulating deciders, as they were one technique used to handle certain limited cases (since of course, it is proven that there is NO universal halt decider, simulating or otherwise).
So, your "discovery" is just a lie you told yourself, because you didn't understand what anything actually meant.