Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/17/2025 5:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/25 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/16/2025 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/25 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/16/2025 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/25 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
article before or when HHH

>
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.

>
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that
paper.
>
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.

>
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
possibly show otherwise.

>
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.

>
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I
will point out the error.

>
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
>

This is the only topic that I will discuss and any

>
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);
}
DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that HHH
does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>

When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not trying to
get away with changing the subject to some other DD somewhere else

such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>

then
anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows that no instance
of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding instance of HHH can
possibly terminate normally.

>

Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider.
>

>
Technically a decider is any TM that always stops running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine)
>
I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.
A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input
that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>
>

>
>
Right, but the answer given by the decider must match the problem.
>

>
Any divergence from the above specification is stipulated
to be incorrect.

>
In other words, you are ADMITTING you have no idea of the actual problem, and think people are interested in your strawman.
>
The WORLD will reject any divergence from the actual specification, leaving you out in the dark just admitting you are a moron.
>

>
*This is the pathological input termination analyzer problem*
Some people might see this as isomorphic to other problems
and some people may not see this.
>

>
In other words, you are just now admitting you have been LYING for decades, because you were too stupid to understand what you were claiming you were working.
>
Glad you finally admitted it.
>
The POOP theory is admitted to be just a pile of shit that you made up, and says NOTHING about the real Halting Problem that you are admitting is too "complecated" for you to undetstand.
>
Sorry, that is the facts of what you just said.

>
I am stipulating that I have solved the simulating
termination analyzer pathological input problem.

 Then stop saying your answer apply to the halting problem.
 

Some people may understand that the above problem seems isomorphic
to the conventional halting problem proofs and some will not.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer