Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this

On 8/3/2024 9:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:

On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD
>
*UNTIL*
>
HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.

>
The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>

>
[Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
  by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

 When it cannot possibly reach its own return instruction,

You are not allowed to disagree with the semantics of C
or the semantics of the x86 language. As long as the
execution trace is consistent with these then it is defined
to be correct.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer