Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt

On 6/9/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2024 9:16 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

If anyone says something new, perhaps they could indicate this in the "Subject" line, as a service to humanity.
>

 *You must know the C programming language to understand this*

Which you have proven you don't have.

 typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
 void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
{
   P(I);
   return;
}
 void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HHH(x, x);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD,DDD);
}
 In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
statement thus never halt.
 When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own return statement, AKA

But it isn't, so you are shown to not know what that would be.

     simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
    until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
    stop running unless aborted

And since it never can do that with this

 *as defined here*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
 

Right, since a "Correct Simulation" here means a simulation that exactly recreates the behavior of the machine descirbed by the input, and that means that such a simulation can not stop before it reaches a final state, your argurement doesn't work.
HHH can not "Correctly Determine" the fact, if by HHH doing the second step mean that the DDD being looked at in the first part (which to be the Linz/Sipser proof uses that exact HHH) will halt, and thus the correct simulation of it will halt, so it is impossible to correct determine that it will not.
You are just showing that your don't understand how to properly use logic, or are just a pathological liar.