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

Op 17.mei.2025 om 05:15 schreef olcott:

On 5/16/2025 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 16/05/2025 16:10, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
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 in the specification of *HHH SIMULATES ITS INPUT*
then by using the strawman error on these dishonestly
changed words they are easy to rebut.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
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.
>

>
Nope, I have explained it, but it seems you are just to stupid to understand (and if you stop here you will just prove your stupidity)
>
>
Yes, H uses its partial simulation to make the decision, and that can be from the partial simulation.
>
But the criteria about being non-halting is based at looking at the hypothetical correct simulation of this exact input (that is the meaninf of its simulated input would not halt) and if that simulation will ever reach a final state, which it does.
>

>
<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
>
THIS HAS ONE MEANING
     *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

>
Right. "its simulated" specifying which input we are talkig about.
>
Would never stop running unless aborted, a desctiption of a correct simulation, pointing out that this aborting just talked about doesn't happen to this simulation.
>

>
its simulated input calls HHH in recursive emulation.
If this recursive emulation is not aborted then DD() never stops.
>

>
But that HHH is the original HHH that WILL abort

  It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

No, it is the job of HHH to determine whether *this* input specifies a program that halts. When you change the input to another input using a HHH that does not abort, you are changing the subject.
You keep changing the subject to another input with an HHH that does not abort, but that input exists only in your dreams. It is not the input given to HHH.
Face the facts, not your dreams. Come out of rebuttal mode. Try to think.