Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 17:53:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 145 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:53:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3238925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KWNAYO3nA92XPaWiTvPMT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VTJNxdTAvLK242c5PdyMhSEghIs= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7537 On 5/25/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 6:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 4:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 3:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 2:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as you first hit the strawman deception >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change-the-subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fake rebuttal I pint this pout and erase everything else >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thread renamed to be 100% precisely accurate* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any divergence from the subject of the thread gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boilerplate reply. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your >>>>>>>>>>>>> words, admitting that you plan to change them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I simply utterly reject the dishonest dodge >>>>>>>>>>>> of the strawman deception change-the-subject rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i); >>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p) >>>>>>>>>>>> 02 { >>>>>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p); >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs >>>>>>>>>>>> where D is >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done >>>>>>>>>>>> because many >>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which >>>>>>>>>>>> H/D pair >>>>>>>>>>>> was being referred to. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined* >>>>>>>>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different >>>>>>>>>>>> notion of >>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates >>>>>>>>>>>> at least one >>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by >>>>>>>>>>>> the x86 >>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 >>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H in the >>>>>>>>>>>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus >>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D,D) in >>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace* >>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, >>>>>>>>>>>> 02, and 03 of >>>>>>>>>>>> D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in >>>>>>>>>>>> endless recursive >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your >>>>>>>>>>> words, admitting that you plan to change them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not at all and you cannot show that I disagree with the above >>>>>>>>>> words to the slightest trace of any degree what-so-ever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Liar Liar Pants on fire? Will assume so until proven otherwise* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A don't say that you disagree woth them, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your >>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>> YES YOU DID, LOOK AT YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I accept that you want to use your stipulated definition of >>>>>>> the words, >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise? >>>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise? >>>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise? >>>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise? >>>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Did you not read what I wrote? >>>>> >>>>> You need to agree to the implications of those definitions before >>>>> we can go on. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have proven that you do not have the basis to move beyond the >>>> subject line of this post. I am unwilling to entertain your baseless >>>> assertions. >>>> >>> >> >> We can get to the next point ONLY AFTER WE FINISH THIS POINT. >> I am no longer willing to tolerate your baseless assertions. >> ONLY AFTER WE HAVE THIS POINT AS A BASIS CAN WE PROCEED. >> >> > > They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the terms > that you are changing. > *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* *Thus trolling me is made impotent* *Thus trolling me is made impotent* *Thus trolling me is made impotent* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer