Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!5.161.41.9.MISMATCH!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 V2
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 21:06:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v28uuv$1a3tk$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org> <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org> <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1na6f$1ugl0$1@dont-email.me> <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1q1ie$2l40t$1@dont-email.me> <v1q9fp$qb0p$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1qmq8$2prs6$1@dont-email.me> <v1qouc$2qb2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <v20027$865j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v200oo$843p$1@dont-email.me> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20cf4$11h4n$3@i2pn2.org> <v20ect$bki0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21r2l$otc2$1@dont-email.me> <v22j90$u8vi$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2592p$1kspo$1@dont-email.me> <v278pt$24k9i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v280hv$298tt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 01:06:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1380276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v280hv$298tt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4476
Lines: 72

On 5/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-16 15:34:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>> Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
>>> counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
>>> (and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
>>> disregard for the truth.
>>
>> No, it does not. A different kind of proof is sufficient to meet
>> the standard, and even a good justification of another kind.
>>
> 
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
> 
> The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
> semantics of the C programming language:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
> 
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 01
> Line 02
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
> 
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
> 
> The key thing to note is that no D simulated by any H of every H/D pair
> specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
> 
> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
> 



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.