Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C

On 5/15/25 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:

I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.

>
Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>

>
In other words you believe that professor Sipser
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.

>
No, you just don't know the meaning of them.
>

>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
>
>

>
Remember, he works in Computation Theory, and thus talks about PROGRAMS, these BY DEFINITION include all of their algrorithm/code as part of themselves.
>
You have admitted/stipuated that YOUR "DD" and "DDD" are NOT program, but just (non-leaf) "C functions", and thus his statement just doesn't apply to your system.
>
Also, "its simulated D would never stop runnign unless aborted" means exactly that, The D that H was given

 cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted by H

"Aborted by H" wasn't in the quote.
H was allowed to abort its simulation of D, if, and only if, it could prove that the (CORRECT) simulation of 'its' D (the one it is partially simulating) would not halt unless it was aborted.

 You get waaaayyyy too confused when you try to address
more than one single point at a time. Even then it usually
takes you at least 50 times to actually see the words that
I said.
 

No, you just get confused when you need to stick to the actual meaning of the words.
Remember, when you provide the words for him to agree to, he is still agreeing to the words as he would reasonably understand them.
That means that H and D are actual PROGRAMS, and thus include ALL the code they us, something you have admitted is NOT true of either your H or your D, and thus, it is just a category error to try to apply his statement to your problem.
Something you have yet to even respond to, my guess is becuase it so blows away your argument you need to just pretend it isn't a thing, but it is, and you have stated it, and thus by ignoring it you are just admitting you think it is ok to lie and use false logic.
That means that NOTHING you have said can be considered to have any truth.
It seems, you don't even know that truth is.