Ben keeps trying to show that I am incorrect and I have finally found a
way to utterly refute his rebuttal.

The behavior of the directly executed D(D) is different than the
behavior of D(D) correctly simulated by H because in the first case H
has already aborted its simulation of its input and in the second case
this has not yet occurred.

Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
No it cannot see the details below.

The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator. This
system enables one C function to execute another C function in debug
step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process context for
D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is able to
simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to recursive
simulations is RAM.

// 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 D(D);
15 }

D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally by
reaching its own final state at line 09.

We can easily fix what Ben has misconstrued as a contradiction by
defining the return value of 0 from H as meaning:
(a) the input does not halt <or>
(b) the input is defined to have a pathological relationship to H.

Since it is true that D was defined to do the opposite of whatever
Boolean value that H returns H is correct to return 0.

*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

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

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:50:47 -0500, olcott wrote:

> thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM

You might as well set an arbitrary limit on recursion, because
that's what you are, in effect, doing.

C'mon, back to the drawing board.

Meanwhile, the logical fallacy you employ:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/constructing-a-logical-argument/#nauseam

fu2: alt.dev.null

--
-v

On 6/19/2023 6:22 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:50:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM
>
> You might as well set an arbitrary limit on recursion, because
> that's what you are, in effect, doing.
>
> C'mon, back to the drawing board.
>
> Meanwhile, the logical fallacy you employ:
>
> https://infidels.org/library/modern/constructing-a-logical-argument/#nauseam
>
> fu2: alt.dev.null
>

I have brand new ideas in this thread that have never been properly
reviewed.

It is the case that when D is correctly simulated by H that D cannot
possibly terminate normally.

It is the case that when a termination analyzer H uses this criteria
that it is not fooled by the pathological input D.

It is the case that when H returns 0 this could be interpreted as
meaning either the input does not halt or the input has defined a
pathological relationship to H.

It is the case that within the above definition that Ben's lost standing
rebuttal utterly fails.

*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

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

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 1:57:50 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:

> I have brand new ideas in this thread that have never been properly reviewed.

Might be an indication of some progress. :-)

> It is the case that when D is correctly simulated by H that D cannot
> possibly terminate normally.

??? When D(D) is "correctly simulated by H" then this simulated D(D) either terminates or not.

-> "terminate(s) normally" is meaningless here.

Yes, you can terminate _the simulation_, but this does not mean that the simulated D(D) terminates.

> It is the case <bla bla bla>

No, it's not the case.

> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

And cranks hit targets which aren't there.

On 6/19/2023 7:21 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 1:57:50 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>
>> I have brand new ideas in this thread that have never been properly reviewed.
>
> Might be an indication of some progress. :-)
>
>> It is the case that when D is correctly simulated by H that D cannot
>> possibly terminate normally.
>
> ??? When D(D) is "correctly simulated by H" then this simulated D(D) either terminates or not.
>
> -> "terminate(s) normally" is meaningless here.
>

What I mean is that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
its own last instruction in any finite number of steps of correct
simulation.

To address the people (like Ben) that say that H reports not-halting and
D(D) halts we say that H reports either not-halting or that D was
defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.

This conquers the one remaining last rebuttal that has persisted for two
years.

> Yes, you can terminate _the simulation_, but this does not mean that the simulated D(D) terminates.
>
>> It is the case <bla bla bla>
>
> No, it's not the case.
>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> And cranks hit targets which aren't there.

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