Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###

On 5/10/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 1:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2024 12:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

I've tried out your much spammed code on GCC (see below).  It is clear
you have never built or run this code, which ironically can't reach Line
06.  It can't even reach line 00.

>

Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
of D simulated by H:

>

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

*That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the detailed*
*steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably liars*

>

You have said, or at least implied that your code fragment is runnable.
I think you are the liar, here.

>

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

>

I removed the line numbers from your code, added in a "pointer to int
function" type (you should really learn how to do this yourself) and ran
the result on GCC.

>

This is the file I submitted:

>

typedef int (* ptr) (void);
int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
int D(ptr x)
{
      int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
      if (Halt_Status)
          HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
}

>

int main()
{
      H(D,D);
}

>

.  These are the diagnostics generated by GCC:

>

olcott.c:2:18: error: redefinition of parameter ‘x’
      2 | int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
        |              ~~~~^
olcott.c:2:11: note: previous definition of ‘x’ with type ‘ptr’ {aka ‘int
(*)(void)’}
      2 | int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
        |       ~~~~^
olcott.c: In function ‘H’:
olcott.c:4:1: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘{’ token
      4 | {
        | ^
olcott.c:12:1: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘{’ token
     12 | {
        | ^
olcott.c:15: error: expected ‘{’ at end of input

>

Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.

>

The code for D is so full of errors that it cannot demonstrate anything,
beyond a lack of proficiency in C in its author.

>
>

*I have fully operational code, yet this is*
*not the code that the words below refer to*

>
Why, then, have you been spamming the group with faulty code for so long?
Why did you not first check it and correct it before posting it?
>
When I brought up the issue before, you "answered", in
>
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 10:47:00 -0500
>
, that
>

There is no actual error in these lines of code.
int main()
{
   H(D,D);
   return 0;
}

>
.  Why did you answer so evasively?  Why did you not admit then that the
code was faulty, and thank me for pointing it out?
>

I had to change the wording for people that intentionally
try as hard as possible to make sure to interpret my words
incorrectly.

>
There are no such people on this newsgroup.  Most people here try to
answer your posts directly and honestly.  You are the poster who attempts
to mislead, obfuscate, and evade.
>

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

>

Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.

>
Why are you doing this again?  Simple software engineering shows that the
above code is so broken as to be unusable.  Why don't you correct it
first before posting it yet again?
>

 *above template ---not code, code template*
*I said it was a code template*
*You knew it was a code template and pretend to not know*

And thus you admit that you setup is NOT identical to the Linz proof,
Note, Strachey doesn't call this a "Template" but a "Routine" (ie a program). Thus changing it to be a template is a semantic and syntatic change in definition,
Note also, Strachey defines T as a ROUTINE (not a set of routines) so it is PRECISELY a single program being refuted as a correct decider.
Your logic fails for thoses defintions.

 *isomorphic to this code template*
 rec routine P
  §L :if T[P] goto L
   Return §
 *An impossible program*
C. Strachey
The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
Published: 01 January 1965
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
  

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>