Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

Am Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:40:56 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/7/2025 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/7/2025 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:

On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:

On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:

On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:

In other words, you know that what you're working on has
nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care.

In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO
QUIT THE SHIT!

You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report
that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator
and running HHH(DD) will not halt.

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"ret" instruction and terminate normally.

Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction,

Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.

No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret'
instruction.

Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject WILL NOT
BE TOLERATED.

If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction
(that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct execution
does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.

*set X*
When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination analyzer calls
the simulator that is simulating itself

Not an issue, since termination analyzers don't exist.

I thought that you demonstrated knowledge of these things.
Maybe I was wrong.

We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm exists
that maps the halting function:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly

Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
AProVE seems to be the leading authority on what you say DOES NOT EXIST

It isn't claimed to be total. Have you tried running it on itself or
on a program similar to DD (instead of calling HHH, ...)?

--
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.