Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

On 8/2/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

>
Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that never aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the HHH that you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
>

 That is probably the least stupid answer here recently.
Mikko, Joes, and Fred would probably not do as well. Let's
see if the others can catch up to at least this much.
 Mike is usually pretty good at his analysis until recently.
He may not understand this key aspect as well as you do.
 

So you accept that the only DDD that is non-halting is the DDD that calls the HHH that does a fully correct emulation of its input, and thus doesn't abort it?
That means you admit that all the other HHHs, when given the DDD that calls them, are just wrong.
OK. you admit that you proof doesn't works.
SO LONG, and thanks for all the fish.