XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.software-eng
On 2/12/23 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/12/2023 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2023 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
Every E correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly halt
(AKA reach its own return instruction and terminate normally)
void E(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
HH(E,E);
}
Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed that E
correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.
HH only needs to simulate E until HH correctly detects that E has a
repeating state such that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
reach its own final state an terminate normally in any finite number of
steps. *Fully operational software linked below proves this*
*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
*Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip
*Because it is an easily verified fact that*
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
cannot possibly halt
(reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally)
*HH is necessarily correct to abort its simulation of E and reject*
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
*as non-halting as soon as it detects the repeating state in*
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
E correctly simulated by HH
*straw man*
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
Finally I have closure, my point is so clear that anyone denying it has
only ridiculously foolish antics that can be spotted as obvious
deception by anyone with very slight software engineering competence.
Nope.
I replied to you ranting, you have ignored my statements because you
have NO answer to it, so you are admitting you are a failure and are
using flawed logic.
YOU ARE ADMITTING FAILURE BY NOT RESPONDING TO THE REBUTAL.
You are just proving that you are a ignorant pathological lying idiot.
Your arguement is base on simple lies that are based on assuming the
impossible happens.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)