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

On 5/17/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:00, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 3:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

That "program" doesn't compile.  It's ill-formed.

>
This does compile under C17 and C11
with Microsoft Visual Studio 2022

 >

*Maybe you forgot to take the line numbers out*
*Maybe you forgot to take the line numbers out*
*Maybe you forgot to take the line numbers out*
*Maybe you forgot to take the line numbers out*
>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int H(ptr P, ptr I);

>
But that's not the code you provide in your numerous previous posts where you insist on
>
int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>
Maybe when people point out that there is an error you should actually proofread what you wrote.
>
[remaining code deleted].
>
André
>

 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
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   return 0;
13 }
 When people tell me that I am wrong about the semantics of
that code template I have always known they are wrong because
I have always had empirical proof that D correctly simulated
By H cannot possibly reach its own simulated line 06 and halt.

So, you ASSUME people are wrong, and make unconditional claims about that when you know it could be YOU that is wrong.
That just makes you a reckless pathological liar that doesn't actually care ablout the truth of your statements.

 Of the five or so reviewers of this work in this forum none have
affirmed and several have denied this empirical fact that no D
of every H/D pair correctly simulated by H can possibly reach its
own simulated line 06 and halt.
 

Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is.
And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
So, since you just admitted that you will assume the other person is wrong, even when it might be you that is wrong, you are just affirming that no one should beleive anything you say, because you are really nothing more than an ignorant damned pathological liar.