Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)

On 4/13/25 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/12/2025 3:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/04/2025 09:31, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-11 08:24:47 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>

On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:

No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid.

>
Wweellll...
>
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been shown. That doesn't mean we can't use them.

>
We can use them for situations where we can trust that they are true.

>
Indeed. And Mr Olcott has his work cut out persuading us to trust his principle. Maybe that's why he quotes it so often, in the hope that constant repetition will make it /seem/ true.
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
 *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
would otherwise prevent its own termination.
 The alternative is the  moronically stupid idea
that termination analyzers should allow themselves
to get get stuck in simulating an input that never halts.
 Only internet trolls that don't giver a rat's ass for
truth would suggest this nutty alternative.
 

If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.
>
     Isa Blagden, The Crown of a Life (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1869), Vol. III, Ch. XI; p. 155.
>
If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
>
     Joseph Goebbels (attr)
>
And most of what Mr Olcott posts is... repetition.
>

 What I have been saying has changed at least 10,000 times
(with progressive refinement) over the last three years.
People that only spew out canned fake rebuttals for the
sole purpose of maintaining contention won't notice this.
 

And you still need to make the needed changes to fix the errors that you keep on ignoring,
Like that your DD is only a program if it includes with it the code for HHH, and thus HHH needs to actually correctly simulate HHH, which means it needs to determine what HHH will return, and have itself be consistant with that since it is the same program.
You are admitted they can't be different, as you have chosen to not show the step that their paths differ, which should be trivial to show if it is true and you have the traces of there correct simulation.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are nothing but an ignorant and stupid pathological liar.