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

On 2/14/25 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/14/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/14/25 7:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb 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

>

Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct
decision about DD's halting behaviour. All other
methods (direct execution,
simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) show
that DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. Everyone with
sufficient understanding of programming sees that HHH
is not correctly programmed when it aborts one cycle
before the simulation would end normally.

The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to
complete its simulation, because HHH is unable to
simulate itself.

It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this
simple proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is
unable to simulate itself up to the normal termination.

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.

HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the
correct value.

The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct
value as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot
possibly terminate normally.

We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according
to spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it
can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH
doesn’t halt, it is not a decider.

I am not going to ever talk about that.

Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections.

I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute
single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possible terminate normally.

That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH.
>

Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next month
will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will totally
ignore anything that diverges from the point.

Ok, I will wait a month then.
>

>
Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows
that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates normally.
>

>
The correct simulation is only the one that it sees
by definition. it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.

>
If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a 2 years old child.

>
HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
And the mapping needs to be the "Halting Function" or HHH just isn't a correct Halt Decider.
>

 DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
changing the subject way from this in the slightest trace of a
degree is deceptive.
 

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.
Your use of incorrect definitions just proves your utter stupidity.
The HHH that never aborts, doesn't answer, so isn't a decider,
Your logic requires one program to be two different and contradictory programs, which just blows your logic up.
Of course you don't like taking about the principle of explosion, because that is what makes your "proof" work, you presume a contradiction, and in the explosion that allows all things, you find the answer you want and ignore the rest.
Sorry, that just proves that you are nothing but a pathological lying fraud.