Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v44gmm$3g17f$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me> <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me> <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
	<v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
	<v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
	<v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me> <v40vec$2gqa0$1@dont-email.me>
	<v41kvu$2jqdk$10@dont-email.me> <v43st3$3cipe$1@dont-email.me>
	<v44cpn$3harn$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3671279"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3355
Lines: 46

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 09:04:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
> 
> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
>    P(I); return;
> }
This is not a simulator.

> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
>    HHH(x, x); return;
> }
This is not a decider.

> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD,DDD);
> }
> 
> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
> thus never halt.
Thus are not deciders.

> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that DDD correctly
> simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return statement, AKA
>     simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until
>     HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop
>     running unless aborted
And aborts it, making it behave differently - namely, terminating.

-- 
joes