Path: ...!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 17:40:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 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 00:40:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3234248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Nnz7wr76pcP9lVVnRRh2J" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:NVwrem8hmyhm3Pe4ZusJcnBNv2E= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6658 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer