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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:39:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kck3$2218$17@i2pn2.org>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$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>
 <v4kbkv$3h3iu$2@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 15:39:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4kbkv$3h3iu$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3783
Lines: 61

On 6/15/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

They only get stuck, if HH itself gets stuck, and such an HH is then not 
a DECIDER.

Reminder of the FACT you keep of trying to forget, is that if HH is to 
be a "Halt Decider" its answer needs to match the actual behavior of the 
direct execution of the input. And, if it isn't a Halt Decider, it can't 
be disproving the proof you claim to be working on.

All you are doing is prove that you don't understand your definitions.