Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state
 and halts
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v26ff0$18ad7$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <v26b2t$1rdu0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 02:29:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v26b2t$1rdu0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2723
Lines: 52

On 5/16/24 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
> semantics of the C programming language.

Which proves that you don't understand that C programming language, or 
how logic work.

> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
> 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 }
> 
> In the above case 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.
> 
> 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 its own line 06 and halt.
> 
> *This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
> 

No, THAT IS A OLCOTT LIE.

I proved it wrong in a post I made about two weeks ago, which you read, 
simce you replied to it, but didn't even attempt to refute the arguement 
I made.

You have REPEATEDLY lied and said I didn't make such a post, but don't 
beleive your own lie enough to take a small risk on it, so you are 
admitting that it might be possible, but you choose to LIE and ignore it 
and just continue to lie saying your statement is self-evidently true, 
which just proves that you don't understand what Truth actually is.

You are just proving that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological 
lying idiot.