Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)

On 12/7/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 6:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/6/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/6/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/6/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2024 11:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.12.2024 um 05:20 schrieb olcott:

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.

>
Maybe you'll solve your halting problem issues before you die.
>

>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
    HHH(DD);
}
>
>
I am sure that DD correctly emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the C programming language cannot possibly
reach its own return instruction final halt state.

>
How does HHH correctly emulated DD, if it isn't give tne code for the
HHH that DD calls?
>

>
As I have told you many dozens of times HHH and DD share
the same global memory space within memory version of the
Halt7.obj file.
>

>
And thus you admit that your HHH isn’t the required “pure function” as its
result is dependent on that contents of that global memory, and not just
its input, as required by the definition of a global function,
>

>
First we have to acknowledge that pure function or not HHH does something unprecedented in the history of the halting problem:
HHH does correctly reject its input as non-halting.

>
No, it doesn't do anything "unprecedented".
>

 Changing the subject to a different criteria
IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION
 

Right, which is what *YOU* have done. As your subject says, you are talking about the *HALTING PROPBLEM* which has a defined criteeria

Try and show any example of any prior work such that
the termination analyzer does return the correct termination
value where the measure of the behavior of DD is DD emulated
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.

But that isn't the required measure, so you are just admitting that your work is just cheating by using a strawman deception

 Changing the subject to a different criteria
IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION

Right, so you are just admitting that you whole work has been based on cheating by using the strawman deception

 HHH can also be based on a C language interpreter or a UTM
as long as it gets the same result for the same criteria.

But the only criteria it is ALLOWED to be measured by is the ACTUAL criteria, which is based on the actual behavior of the *PROGRAM* the input represents, which in this case is the DD that calls the HHH that you claim gives the correct answer.
That program HALTS when run, and thus HHH saying it doesn't is WRONG, and you are shown to be just a stupid cheater trying to pull a deception by using the wrong criteria.

 Changing the subject to a different criteria
IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION

Right, so you are just admitting that you whole work has been based on cheating by using the strawman deception
Note, all you have shown is that your logic is based on a total disreguard for the definitions of the system, and thus is based on LIES and FALSEHOODS, just like you seem to not think that human laws apply to you (as shown by your claim that you owning child pornography was "ok" because the law didn't apply to you since you were "God".
It looks like you will shortly be coming to face with the being that put into place the actual laws, and you will get to see how little your ideas of what is right matter compared to what has been DEFINED to be right.
Sorry if that offends you, but that is the facts, you are not God, not even being the "creator" of the fields you claim to be talking about, and thus you are subject to the rules of that field.
If you want to play in a different field, you need to find it defined by someone else and follow their rules, or do the work to actually create it yourself, but it seems you don't know enough to actually do that, because you just don't understand how logic actually works.