Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof

On 8/2/24 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 5:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>

Of course these traces don't support PO's overall case he is claiming,
because the (various) logs show that DDD halts, and that HHH(DDD) reports
DDD as non-halting, exactly as Linz/Sipser argue. Er, that's about it!

>
PO certainly used to claim that false (non-halting) is the correct
result "even though DDD halts" (I've edited the quote to reflect a name
change).  Unless he's changed this position, the traces do support his
claim that what everyone else calls the wrong answer is actually the
right one.
>

 I had to simplify it into simpler steps because the
recent people don't seem to know the first thing
about programming.

No, YOU don't know the first things about programming, like the actual behavior of the functions you call matter.

 Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
return instruction?

Which is irrelevent, since the HHH you talk about doesn't do that.
That just shows that you are trying to use magic fairy dust powered logic.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 *You are the only one that got this much correctly*
 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.
 *Even Mike got much less that that*