On 2/20/23 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> int D(int (*x)())
> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> When simulating halt decider H is applied to the conventional (otherwise
> impossible) input D ordinary software engineering conclusively proves
> that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own return
> statement and terminate normally (AKA halt).
Nope, since D(D) Halt, by the conventional definition of a "Correct
Simulation", such a COrrect Simulation must indicate that D(D) will
Halt, thus and simulation that show otherwise is BY DEFINITION incorrect.
> A simulating halt decider H correctly predicts whether or not D
> correctly simulated by H would ever reach its own final state.
So, since in computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever. And we know that D(D) Halts, the correct answer for a Halt
Decider given a description of D(D) would be halting, if H is "correct"
to say non-halting, it must not be a Halt Decider/
> The ultimate measure of a correct simulation is that the execution trace
> behavior of the simulated input exactly matches the behavior that the
> input machine code specifies.
And H mis-simulates the call to H, as it seem to assume it is calling a
function that behaves differently than what H actually does.
That or it starts from a "Correct" (but incomplete) simulation and then
does not "Correctly Determine" the results from there.
Disagreeing with the verified fact that D(D) Halts and thus the only
correct answer for H(D,D) if H is actually a Halt Decider is Halting
shows that YOU are dishonest AND incompetent.
> Whether or not the above directly applies to the halting theorem is the
> only actually open issue.
So, you ADMIT that you don't know if it applies to the Halting Theorem,
even though you claim it to be a correct answer for something you claim
is a Halt Decider by the definition of the Problem (which it isn't).
You adding this disclaim is just proof that you know your logic is
false, and you are trying to leave some weasle room to get out of your
bald faced lies.