Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Op 15.jun.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 6/15/2024 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.jun.2024 om 22:46 schreef olcott:

On 6/14/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:

On 6/14/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.jun.2024 om 14:49 schreef olcott:

I ran the actual code to verify the facts.
HH1(DD,DD) does not have a pathological relationship to its input
thus this input terminates normally.

>
Your terminology is confusing. What you call a "pathological relationship" is that H must simulate itself.
>

>
*CONVENTIONAL TERMINOLOGY*
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

>
The problem is that your simulator does not even reach the "pathological" part of D.

>
That is not the problem that is the criterion measure of a solution.

>
You are using the wrong criterion, because this wrong criterion also also applies to other programs, without a "pathological" part.
>
        int main()
        {
          return H(main, 0);
        }
>
where you proved that H reports a false negative.
>
So, your criterion has no relation with "pathological" programs.
>

 This criteria works correctly for ALL input, including pathological
main().

You are twisting your own words,because main is not "pathological".
You do not even understand you own definition of "pathological":
Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:

 *CONVENTIONAL TERMINOLOGY*
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.

No high level programming skills are needed to see that there is no part where main 'then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts it will do'.
It seems that you are changing the definition of "pathological" to 'any program for which H returns a false negative', which then becomes a tautology.

Maybe if you were a PhD computer science professor you would
understand this.

Many people without a PhD understand your are continuously changing definitions. No PhD needed. I am sorry for you if you don't grasp it.
(Btw, I never refer to my PhD, because I think arguments should convince, not authority.)