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 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".
It si easy to write a function to give the WRONG answer.
After all, once you allow HHH to not be a pure function, I can prove your claim wrong. (and if you keep you HHH required to be a pure function, your design just doesn't work). Thus, you are just shown to be a liar making false claims that have been disproven.
It seems you memory is shot, as you keep on returning to ideas that you forget have already been disproved.

 When the input is allowed to do the opposite of whatever value
that HHH returns this is impossible. The "doing the opposite"
code is unreachable code for DD simulated by any HHH.

But that is just a meaningless sentence, as partial simulation don't show "never", just "Not yet"
The problem is you are totally ignorant of the technical meaning of the words you use, becuase you made yourself intentionally ignorant of the field, which just proves your basic stupidity

 

Thus, your entire proof is just a LIE.
>

 When I claim X and you claim not Y THAT IS NOT A REBUTTAL!
I claim that HHH returns the correct answer. You claim that
HHH does not do this in the correct way. Correct way or not
HHH does return the correct answer.
 

When you make a meaningless claim, it means nothing but that you are stupid.
Sorry, but those are the FACTS, which you just continue to prove.

We can apply Mike's convoluted ideas to transform HHH into
returning the correct answer in the correct way.
 

Nope. for THIS DD, there is no answer that the HHH that it calls can return to be correct, as each HHH creates a different input DDD, that has been constructed to make that HHH wrong.
There IS a correrct answer that HHH SHOULD have returned to be correct, it just isn't the one that it returns, but other deciders can, and be right about this input.
Part of your

If you remove the requirement in your logic of HHH being a global function,
then I have previously shown an HHH that CAN emulate its input to that
final return, and thus refuting your claim.
>
All you have done is just prove that you are nothing but an ignorant liar
that doesn’t know what his words mean, and who refuse to learn, thus
removing the defense of it just being a honest mistake.
>
No, you are just showing how utterly STUPID and DISHONEST you have been in
your claims and arguments.
>
Sorry, but that it just the facts, facts you are just too stupid to
understand.
>
>

_DD()
[0000213e] 55             push ebp
[0000213f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002141] 51             push ecx
[00002142] 683e210000     push 0000213e
[00002147] e8a2f4ffff     call 000015ee ; *call HHH in global memory*
[0000214c] 83c404         add esp,+04
[0000214f] 8945fc         mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002152] 837dfc00       cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00002156] 7402           jz 0000215a
[00002158] ebfe           jmp 00002158
[0000215a] 8b45fc         mov eax,[ebp-04]
[0000215d] 8be5           mov esp,ebp
[0000215f] 5d             pop ebp
[00002160] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002160]
>
Line 1354 called on line 1388
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>

>
>
>