Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention

On 7/15/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:

>
When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
then your disagreement has no actual basis.
>
*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>
Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
with arithmetic.

>
A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
like the uncomputability of halting is.

 The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
whatever DDD reports.

You mean HHH.
And yes, as that is a valid program.

 When HHH is defined such that an input that was defined to
do the opposite of whatever HHH reports can never reach this
point in its execution trace then the prior halting problem
proof has been defeated.
 

But why can't it reach that point?
If HHH, which must be a DEFINED program for DDD to have been built on it, decides to abort and return an answer, DDD can then act contrary.
If HHH doesn't return, it isn't a decider.
The only way that HHH keeps DDD from getting there is to fail to be a decider.
Remember, the question is about the behavior of the PROGRAM DDD, not the partial simulation done by HHH of it.
You are just showing your utter ignorance of the words you are using.