• Re: Every E correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly halt V2 [ foo

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Feb 12 16:44:59 2023
    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)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Feb 12 15:34:05 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.software-eng

    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.

    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)