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

Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:33:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/9/2025 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 12:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:49 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 10:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 9:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:15 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 2:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:04 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 00:13 schreef olcott:

That DD halts is a verified fact.

>
The input to HHH(DD) DOES NOT HALT !!!

>
It is a verified fact that the finite string describes a halting
program. Du to a bug, HHH does not see that, because it
investigates only the first few instructions of DD. HHH is unable
to process the call from DD to HHH correctly.

DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

Indeed, because HHH fails to simulate itself up to the end.
This is verified with:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

There is no simulating itself to the end with the above example
either.

It seems Olcott misses trivial facts. HHH simulates main, which calls
HHH, so HHH needs to simulate HHH. HHH is unable to complet the
simulation up to the end, because it

specifies a computation that cannot possibly terminate normally.

Which is weird, considering that HHH is supposed to be a decider,
i.e. always terminate, both as the simulator and the simulated
program.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.