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

On 2/14/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/14/2025 6:53 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:20:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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

>
Hey, let me prove all programs are no-ops, by NOT SIMULATING THEM MWAHAHA
>

 DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
 

The problem is your HHH doesn't do that, so your are baseing your logic on a LIE.
You don't understand what a "Program" which just breaks all your logic, as you need HHH to be two different things at once, which is just the contradiction that blows up your logic.