Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

Op 10.mei.2025 om 16:33 schreef olcott:

On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>

Look at their replies to this post.
Not a one of them will agree that
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return; // final halt state
}
>
When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>
They have consistently disagreed with this
simple point for three years.

>
I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>

 I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's
otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
 

Another bad dream? The fact is that the input is not 'impossible', but that this system ignores most of the input. In particular it ignores the important part of the input that has a conditional abort, which makes that the input specifies a halting program. That the system does not see that part of the specification does not mean that it is not specified. It only means that the system is buggy.
It seems that after each bad dream you have forgotten the verifiable facts that have been presented to you earlier.