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

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?
Note, per the definition of the Halting Problem, which you claim to be solving, the input shown is not a valid input for a halt decider, as the input needs to be a FULL PROGRAM, which you are not providing.

 When HHH reports on this behavior of its actual input
it is necessarily correct to reject DD as non halting.
DD emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive simulation.

But it CAN'T do that, as the

 Everyone seems to be in universal agreement that HHH
is supposed to report on the behavior of a non-input
except for theory of computation professor Sipser of MIT.

Except that the input *IS* the reprentation of the *PROGRAM* DDD, or it isn't a valid input.
What is "non-input" abot that? If you are excluding the code of HHH from the input, the input is just invalid and your claims are shown to be just stupid lies.

 Thus Professor Hehner derived the essence of this halt status criteria:
This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:

No, you are misinterpreting his answer.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 

Right, the decider must determine that a *CORRECT EMULATION* of the input must not reach a final state, and his definition of a correct emulation is a emualtion that continues until it reaches a final state, and thus will be non-halting itself if the program it is emulating is non-halting.
Note also, D is a PROGRAM, which means it includes ALL its code, which for your above program includes the code for HHH, so that HHH ever abortes and return (by incorrectly thinking it has satisfied the first part) then the actual correct emulation of that input would return, and H has just failed to meed the requriements of correctly determining that a correct emulation of the input will never halt.
Your attempt to argue that HHH had to abort is just incorrect, as HHH is at this point a FIXED program (not your infinite set of deciders) as it is defined by the code in the input which includes that HHH, and we know that if HHH acts as you claim, that the correct emulation of the input will halt, and thus HHH could not have correctly determined that the emulation of *THIS* input would not halt, so it has just aborted its emulation in violation of the conditions, and thus has given up the "protection" of that clause.
Your LYING CHANGING of the input to refer to a different program DDD that uses a different HHH is just that, A LIE, as that input doesn't mathc the input that your HHH that answered was given, as it has different code for the HHH that the DDD called.
Sorry, but all you are doing is proving that you are just an ignorant liar that doesn't understand the words he is using and apparently doesn't care that he has no factual basis to make your claims, showing you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar.
That WILL be you legacy whenever your cancer takes you unless you repent and show some ability to learn the actual facts.