Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/13/25 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:

On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott:

On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:

On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:

On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott:

On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:

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

Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:

On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:

On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:

>

So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts.
HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in
         int main() {           return HHH(main);
         }
but he denies it.
He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, which he
tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words.

>
It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be correctly
simulated by HHH until its normal termination.

Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself
correctly.

If this was true then you could point out exactly where HHH is
incorrect.

It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to Olcott
many times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
It is a verified fact that main halts,

It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot possibly
terminate normally.

No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie normally

The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>

This main is a program that includes all functions called directly and
indirectly, including HHH.

>
The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.

>

The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not simulate that.
>

>
The directly executed main() is not the same instance of
main() that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
>
The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting
the simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything
else aborting the simulation of its input.

>
The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort.

>
That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least one
more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees.
>

>
Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation.
HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem.

>
If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater
context.

>
Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort,

>
This is simply beyond your skill level.
Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first
one aborts none of them do.
>
>

>
But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be.
>
And thus, the one that DD calls aborts.
>

 A program that is no longer being simulated DOES NOTHING
 

A program's behavior is not based on it actually being run, but is a fixed property of its design.
We aren't talking about "Program instances", we are talking about behavior of "Programs".
That is the exact configuration of the instructions so defined, that is a program.
"Partial Simulations" do not define the behavior of programs, only actual running or full simulation.
You are just showing you fail to understand what you are talking about an just making up lies to cover up that fact.
Sorry, you just proved your ignorance.