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

Op 17.mei.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:

On 5/16/2025 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/05/2025 00:59, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 10:48 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/05/2025 16:10, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

>
Only damned liars would remove this key context.
>

Anyone that knows C can tell that when HHH does simulate
DDD correctly that it keeps getting deeper in recursive
simulation until aborted or OOM error.

>
Anyone who knows C knows that there isn't much HHH can do with the pointer value it's given. It can call DDD:
>
(*p)();
>

>
Sure when you make sure to totally ignore crucial
words

>
The crucial words - *so* crucial that you keep on repeating them - are 'Anyone who knows C'.
>
You don't.
>

then by using the strawman error on these dishonestly
changed words they are easy to rebut.

>
I didn't change your words; I just rebutted them.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion."
>
When you said "Anyone who knows C" (as you have said very often), you yourself opened the discussion.
>
If you don't want people to attack your woeful understanding if the language, don't make the claim that you know the language.
>

On the other hand when honest C programmers see
those words they will think of something like a C
interpreter written in C is doing the simulation.

>
If you are claiming to have written a C interpreter, that's a huge claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it.
>

>
When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.
>

>
But that is your standard procedure, that and lying about the meaning of words.
>
The fact that you need to always "paraphrase" statements and requirements so you can change them just shows how you try to work.
>
Halt Deciders need to decide Halting, which is a property of the direct running of the program given to the decider via a full representation.
>

 There are times where this doesn't seem to make sense.
Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its simulation then not even DDD() halts.
 

Only if you, dishonestly, also change the input. We are discussing the input that specifies an HHH that aborts and halts after one cycle. You have shown the code of Halt7.c.
When the simulation of *this* input is not aborted, it halts naturally, as we see when it is simulated by world-class simulators and even HHH1.
If you use an HHH that does not abort, you are not allowed to change the input to something else and you do create another input that specifies a program that does not abort, then you change the subject.