Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D) is correct

On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 2:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

01 void B(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
02 {
03   A(x, x);
04   return;
05 }
06
07 void main()
08 {
09   A(B,B);
10 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 09: main() invokes A(B,B);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)

That is a premature conclusion when A is not specified.

>
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)

 Which just shows your ignorance as that doesn't define what A actually is, or needs to do.
 You are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.
 

>

It holds if A does not halt. If A returns, then B will halt (unless aborted).

>
If you honestly don't see that no A can possible return to
any simulated B then you lied about your programming skill.
Otherwise you can see this and are lying about it.

 It may not be able to simulate a B to the point of seeing an A return to it,

*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
It is not possible to CORRECTLY simulate a B to the point of seeing
an A return to it because A calls B in recursive simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer