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

On 5/16/25 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:

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*

Right, and the PROGRAM DDD that is built on the PROGRAM HHH that does decide to abort and return 0 to HHH(DDD) will stop running when simulated without aborting.
Note, it is the simulation of DDD, not the simulation by HHH that must never stop running unless aborted.
Also, DDD needs to be a program, and thus have specific code

 When you keep switching this back to
*WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DDD IS ABORTED*
You become a damned liar.

But I am not. DDD can't be aborted. It simulation can. The question is about if the simulation of DDD needs to be aborted, but it doesn't, as DDD calls an HHH that aborts its simulation and return 0. Thus the simulation of DDD doesn't need to be aborted.

 HHH and DDD and everything that HHH calls
*WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS DDD IS ABORTED*
 

No, the problem is you don't have the right definition for what DDD actually is.
First, it needs to be a PROGRAM, and thus include the code of the specific HHH that it calls. For DDD to be the program from the proof, that HHH needs to be the code of the HHH that you claim is giving the right answer, and that is the HHH that aborts and returns 0.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to build a PROGRAM (by the rules of Computation Theory) that can change its algorithm depending on who is simulating it. Thus you can't make your argument that when you hypotheticalize about an HHH that doesn't abort you need to change the code that DDD uses, as it MUST have been defined originally, and your new hypothetical DDD using the Hypothetical HHH isn't the input that the real HHH was given, so its behavior is just a strawman,
Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and either don't care to learn because you don't care about what is truth, or are actaully incapable of learning them because of some form of mental problem. Either way, it shows you are just a pathological liar.