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

On 3/7/2025 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/7/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:

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 should be noted that the term "analyzer" appears exactly ONCE in this document outside of the bibliography (compared to 46 for "termination analysis"), and that it focuses on the process of finding answers in some cases.
>
The point is that your HHH doesn't give the answer that a halt decider / termination analyzer is stipulated to provide for DD.
>

 Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
 

Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point
that halt deciders / termination analyzers map 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
Which your HHH does not do and therefore can't be applied to the halting problem