Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike

Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:

On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

We prove that the simulation is correct.
Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>
Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

>
Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
not interesting.
>
The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>
Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.

Contradiction in terminus.
A correct simulation is not possible. The simulation failes to reach the final halt state.

 It is true that anyone that cannot understand this is true
has insufficient technical competence.

In particular when he thinks that a simulation that fails to reach the final halt status of a halting program is correct.