Path: ...!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: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 15:42:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2b0al$1ct7o$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2atgh$2tove$1@dont-email.me> <v2auo0$1ct7o$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v2av9i$2u35v$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 19:42:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1471736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2av9i$2u35v$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4145
Lines: 65

On 5/18/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 2:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Until you refine your current non-existant definitions of the 
>>>>>> terms, you have the problem described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't have any idea what you are saying until you fill in
>>>>> all of the details of your baseless claims.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you refuse to listen.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the 
>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well 
>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> YOU have decided that H is just whatever C code you want to write 
>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match the 
>>>> Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all the code template that I am currently referring
>>> has nothing to do with any decider, it only pertains to a
>>> simulator where H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>> of each H/D pair specified by the following template.
>>
>> And that is exactly what my H is. It will simulate all of the steps of 
>> D, the D that call that H, till it reaches the end.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And mine emulates ALL of them to the final return on line 06
> 
> You have already agreed that this is impossible for pure simulator
> H many times. I am stopping at your first big mistake.
> 


So, you admit that you are not looking at what I have done, this means 
that any denials of the ability for my method are just admitted LIES and 
proof that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't even care what 
is true.