Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT

On 4/18/25 12:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:

I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem

>
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
>
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.

>
Partial deciders are a thing,

 Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.

No, To be an actual Termination Analyter, they need to correctly answer for ALL inputs.
But practice understands that is impossible, and thus "informally' uses the term with the assume PARTIAL modifier.

 

 dear, and in the case of a simulating halt
decider with finite resources repeated state can be recognised for a
useful subset of problems including the ability to recognise pathological
input (halting problem category error manifestation). A simulating halt

 Yes.

decider with the mythical infinite resources that the halt decider that
your proofs are predicated on also possesses is an unpartial decider also
with the ability to recognise pathological input (halting problem category
error manifestation).
>
/Flibble

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
} SIMULATED DD
  It is correct for HHH to reject its input DD as
non-terminating on the basis that DD SIMULATED BY
HHH and HHH emulating itself emulating DD prove a
repeating pattern preventing the

No it isn't as that isn't the question of a Halt Decider.
First, the pattern DOESN'T repeat, not for the actuall HHH that you have defined, as it WILL abort its simulation, and thus we know that the full simulation of the input will see that same behavior of the input, and thus the logic is based on LIES (as is most of your logic)

 // dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years\

\
\

SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD

WHich is just a LIE, so not a sound basis.
First, you are just confusing yourself, as DD isn't defined to do any simulation, just use a decider on itself to act contrary to.
HHH may be specified to get its answer by simulation, but fails to meet that specification, as it doesn't determine what a CORRECT simulation (which is by definition a CONPLETE simulation) will do.
So, your logic is based on the LIE of a strawman criteria which isn't what the decider is supposed to be doing, and then a lie within your criteria as HHH doesn't DO a correct simulation, so using the non-existant simulation to "verify" your answer is just another lie.

  From ever reaching its own final halt state.
The above refutes the conventional Halting Problem proof.
The simulating halt decider / termination analyzer is my idea.

No, it just shows that you think lying is valid logic, as NOTHING in the problem you claim to be doing mentions the behavior determined by the simulation of the decider, but only the actual behavior of the direct exscution, thus showing that is it *YOU* that has been dishonestly changing the subjedt for years. as you are now demonstrating.

 Flibble's signalling halt decider is also very useful
because it looks at both of two options.
 Computer Science professor Eric Hehner independently derived
the prequel to a simulating halt decider (see quote below)
[5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
 *Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*
   From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an
   interpreter to a program text that includes a call
   to that same interpreter with that same text as
   argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
   program has some of the same character as an interpreter:
   it applies to texts through abstract interpretation.
   Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting program to a program
   text that includes a call to that same halting program with
   that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.
   (Hehner:2011:15) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
 

Professor Hefner is just showing that he too doesn't understand the definition of a PROGRAM. Sorry, but just because someone else makes the same mistake doesn't make your statement true.
By that logic you agree that you logic is just broken as many people have stated that, is I guess "it must be true".
You are just showing you don't understand that fundamental properties of how logic works.
All you are doing is adding more proof to the fire that shows how little you understand what you are talking about, and how much you are willing to lie about it. That is the fuel for the lake of fire you are headed for.