Re: Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) --- REFUTES INCORRECT REQUIREMENTS

On 5/9/25 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 11:49 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/05/2025 17:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 09/05/2025 17:25, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.
(final halt state)

>
You beg the question.
>
You have not shown that HHH correctly simulates anything.
>
Mike Terry, on the other hand, has shown that it fails to correctly simulate DDD.
>

>
It may correctly /partially/ simulate DDD, in the sense of correctly simulating the sequence of instructions of DDD until it decides to stop simulating.  Well, in practice there is the complication that PO's code has design bugs meaning that what PO calls a simulation is NOT actually valid, due to misuse of global variables in his code!  To be valid, the sequence of instructions simulated must match the instructions of the computation being simulated (i.e. match the instruction sequence of the independently executed computation.
>
Obviously a partial simulation (even a valid one) not reaching the halt state does not mean that the computation being simulated never halts.
>
>
Mike.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.
 That a correctly simulated input cannot possibly
reach its own simulated final halt state proves
that this simulated input cannot possibly halt.
 

But pure function HHH can not emulate the instructions of HHH that it hasn't been given as part of the input.
Thus you have stipulated that your statement is false.
Sorry, but you are just showing you don't understand the requirement to use consistant, and correct, definitions of terms.
All you are doing is proving that you are just a stupid liar.