Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs VERIFIED FACT

On 4/29/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/04/2025 22:38, olcott wrote:
 <snip>
 

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
HHH is correct DD as non-halting BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT THE INPUT TO HHH(DD) SPECIFIES.

 You're going round the same loop again.
 Either your HHH() is a universal termination analyser or it isn't.

The domain of HHH is DD.

If it isn't, it's irrelevant to the Halting Problem,

It correctly refutes the conventional proof of the
Halting Problem proofs. The "impossible" input specifies
non-halting behavior and the contradictory part of DD
is unreachable code.
Have you ever done any actual programming?

and we can ignore it. If it is, however, then we know that it doesn't work for all inputs, even if (as you claim) it works for one.
 <snip>
 

DD <is> the Halting Problem counter-example input to HHH.
>

for the same reason we can't devise a universally accurate termination analyser that executes the code to see what happens.
>

>
There is no evidence of that.

 Sure there is. Not just evidence, but an actual, rigorous, mathematical proof.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer