Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:23:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v4kbkv$3h3iu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v468qt$7uvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47joj$je45$1@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$jhs8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47l92$je45$2@dont-email.me> <v48tt4$tqad$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me> <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cp5s$1pe0q$1@dont-email.me> <v4cs0b$1p0h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4csdq$1q0a8$1@dont-email.me> <v4ctuq$1p0h1$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4cuc6$1qedu$1@dont-email.me> <v4e9qm$25ks0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4epji$28g4v$2@dont-email.me> <v4fhj3$2dce5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4fi0m$2dvk4$1@dont-email.me> <v4h4ag$2q9hc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4he7s$2sdqr$4@dont-email.me> <v4i41a$30e5b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4i52u$30usa$1@dont-email.me> <v4i7ne$311i2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ia6l$31vjj$1@dont-email.me> <v4jlds$3cq2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k0fc$3f0hc$1@dont-email.me> <v4k74f$3g29j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k7he$3gc4t$1@dont-email.me> <v4k8us$3g29j$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4k9kk$3gc4t$6@dont-email.me> <v4kb18$3gpbj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:23:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90";
	logging-data="3706462"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198/MHWeKv+h5iYQU03ROVH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FonCZt5TFZMBhrU4lOH9Efr4xB0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4kb18$3gpbj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3469

On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 15.jun.2024 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/15/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this the new definition of "pathological"?
>>
>> *It is the same thing that I have been saying all along*
>>
>> 00   typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>> 01
>> 02   int HH(ptr P, ptr I);
>> 03
>> 04   void DDD(int (*x)())
>> 05   {
>> 06     HH(x, x);
>> 07     return;
>> 08   }
>> 09
>> 10   int main()
>> 11   {
>> 12     HH(DDD,DDD);
>> 13   }
>>
>> Line 12 main()
>>    invokes HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>>
>> *REPEAT UNTIL outer HH aborts*
>>    Line 06 simulated DDD()
>>    invokes simulated HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HH never reaches its own "return"
>> instruction and halts.
> 
> So, you agree that you are changing definitions. 

Not at all. The original definition still applies when it
is made more generic.

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       }

D correctly simulated by H has isomorphic behavior to DDD
correctly simulated by HH, both get stuck in recursive
simulation.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer