Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:

On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

None-the-less it is clear that of the above specified infinite
set DDD correctly emulated by each element of that set never
reaches its own "return" instruction halt state.

Since no DDD is correctly simulated by HHH, we are talking about the
properties of an empty set.
But, indeed, the simulation of DDD by HHH fails to reach the halt
state. It aborts one cycle before the simulated HHH would reach its
'return' instruction, after which DDD would reach its halt state.

My words must be understandable by ordinary C programmers
and computer scientists. The latter tend to conclude that
my work is incorrect as soon as they know the subject matter
before actually seeing what I said.

Your words are understandable; they're just wrong.

Every C programmer understands that a simulation fails if it does not
reach the end of a halting program.

Four expert C programmers (two with masters degrees in
computer science) agree that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH does not halt.

It's not clear what these "expert programmers" have agreed to.  As Fred
has frequently pointed out, your DDD cannot be correctly simulated by
HHH, so you have an empty set about which anything is true.

Many more experts with master degrees tell you that it does halt.
Show evidence instead of authority.

*Every attempt at rebutting this has been*

There's nothing to rebut.  You just keep coming out with blatant
falsehoods, as pointed out by the other posters, here.

(a) Denying verified facts

That's a lie.  By "verified facts" you just mean "falsehoods PO would
like to be true".

(b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting that

That's a lie, too.  I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing this.
Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.

(c) Pure ad hominem insults with zero reasoning

That's also false.  The insults follow as a result of your falsehoods and
lies.  They are entirely justified.  You continually insult other posters
by several means, including ignoring what they write.  If you would
actually treat them with respect, the insults against you would cease.

Mike is the only one here that seems to have enough technical
skill to understand the verified facts.

You mean agree with your falsehoods.  Mike doesn't do this.  You wouldn't
know technical skill if it bit you on the nose.

Everyone else denies them entirely on the basis of their own ignorance.

You're the ignorant poster here, nobody else.  You've taken a small part
of an undergraduate mathematics or computer science course, something the
typcial student would master in a few hours at most, spent 20 years on
it, and you still don't get it.

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).