----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: KJXf.46114@fx05.iad>
d85a70e0
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> 05173670
@REPLYADDR Richard Damon
<Richard@Damon-Family.org>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Richard Damon
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 3@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
KJXf.46114@fx05.iad>
@TZUTC: -0400
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/23/23 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> A pair of C functions are defined such that D has the halting problem
> proofs pathological relationship to simulating termination analyzer H.
> When it is understood that D correctly simulated by H (a) Is the
> behavior that H must report on (b) Cannot possibly terminate normally
> then it is understood that D is correctly determined to be non-halting.
BNo, you H doesn`t "Correctly iImulate" this input, so "D correctly
Simulated by H" is a non-existant event, and thus, doesn`t actually
assert anything. This shows you are just a hypocrite, as you claim that
you can only say something is true if it neccessary follows from the
true premises, but then insist on useing FALSE premises.
>
> We can know that D correctly simulated by H must have different behavior
> than D(D) directly executed in main() because we can see (in its
> execution trace shown below) exactly how the pathological relationship
> between D and H changes the behavior of D relative to H.
No, it CAN"T by the definition of "Correctly Simulated"
That like saying Trump must have won the last el4ction, because, reasons.`
You trace show H simulating D to the point that D calls, H, and then H
makes the ERRONEOUS assupmption that a call to H will not return, even
though H establishs (by its own action) that such a call DOES return a 0
in finite time;
Thus, H is just wrong and you are proved to be an ignorant liar.
>
> // The following is written in C
> //
> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
> 03
> 04 int D(ptr x)
> 05 {
> 06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 07 if (Halt_Status)
> 08 HERE: goto HERE;
> 09 return Halt_Status;
> 10 }
> 11
> 12 void main()
> 13 {
> 14 H(D,D);
> 15 }
>
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 14: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> *keeps repeating (unless aborted)*
> Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 06.
>
> H correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
> terminate normally on the basis that H recognizes a dynamic behavior
> pattern equivalent to infinite recursion. H returns 0 this basis.
How is this correct, since an actual correct simulation of this input,
shows that it WILL reach the final state.
The simulation that H does is of a DIFFERENT machine then actually given
to it, because it, in effecrt, closes its eyes and say "I won`t look at
H, so I can say it does anything I want to say, even if it is wrong"
>
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not
_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
Proof that you are just a Hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: Forte - www.forteinc.com (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441