Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3d44q$2b9oj$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:15:55 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 90 Message-ID: <v3d44q$2b9oj$2@dont-email.me> References: <v3a40t$1o2ef$1@dont-email.me> <v3asj2$2ihjj$2@i2pn2.org> <v3asv1$1s60g$1@dont-email.me> <v3bvg7$24rgd$1@dont-email.me> <v3cml5$28tmt$1@dont-email.me> <v3cqs8$29k17$2@dont-email.me> <v3crrg$29gdk$4@dont-email.me> <v3ct95$2a0fg$1@dont-email.me> <v3cvop$2agep$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:15:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf53965cd5e18e109738f16cf9deb9c3"; logging-data="2467603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hEiXvL0SYAIluGULAWLw7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:i4jWDbfEvl0bpzbzohUncXPTPj4= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v3cvop$2agep$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5126 Op 31.mei.2024 om 19:01 schreef olcott: > On 5/31/2024 11:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 31.mei.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott: >>> On 5/31/2024 10:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 31.mei.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 31.mei.2024 om 00:01 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 4:54 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 30 May 2024 09:55:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 left hand-side are line numbers of correct C code. >>>>>>>>> This code does compile and does conform to c17. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everyone with sufficient knowledge of C can easily determine >>>>>>>>> that D >>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any *pure function* H (using an x86 >>>>>>>>> emulator) >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state at line 06 >>>>>>>>> and halt. >>>>>>>> Yeah, of course not, if H doesn’t halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To actually understand my words (as in an actual honest dialogue) >>>>>>> you must pay careful attention to every single word. Maybe you >>>>>>> had no idea that *pure functions* must always halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or maybe you did not know that every computation that never reaches >>>>>>> its own final state *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops running because >>>>>>> it is no longer simulated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the claim is that H is also a computation, it holds for H, >>>>>> as well. That means that H *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops >>>>>> running because it is no longer simulated. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *pure function H definitely halts you are confused* >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can assume a unicorn, but that does not make it existent. You >>>> can assume a simulating H that is a pure function and halts, but >>>> that does not make them existent. The set of such H is empty. >>> >>> You simply ignored my proof that you are wrong. >>> >>> D correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach >>> its own final state at line 06 in any finite number of steps of >>> correct simulation. >> >> I do not ignore your claim. It is in fact exactly your claim that D >> does not reach line 04 that proves that the simulation of HH does not >> reach its own final state. >> >> HH correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own final state >> and return to D in any finite number of steps of correct simulation. > > The dishonest dodge of the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT > fake rebuttal is the most common fake rebuttal that people try > to get way with. Is that your reaction if your assumption is proved to be false? If your claim turns out to be wrong? Is it dishonest to prove you wrong? I am not changing the subject. As everybody following the thread knows, the claim that H halts belongs to the subject. So the CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT excuse is false. I should have known. As soon as you are proved false, you try to get away with the accusation that it is dishonest. But OK, I accept that you don't want a honest dialogue. You only want to hear supporters of your claims, all other reactions you find dishonest. So, you will never learn. I can no longer help you, if you refuse a honest dialogue.