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

On 5/17/25 12:53 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

And that is why HHH needs to be a specific program. Once it is a program then either it does or does not abort, and thus that fixes what the correct answer is.
Remember, the actual program DDD given as the input doesn't even exist until the HHH that it uses exists.
You are working at a meta-level, trying to figure out how to design and HHH that could get the problem based on the template right. The contradiction you are running into just says that no such HHH can exists, not that there is a problem with the original question, It just means that the answer to the outer question, can such a decider exist to correctly answer the halting question, is that no such decider can exist.
Your inability to understand this basic concept shows how little your understanding is of the basic theory you are trying to talk about.

 

Since DD(), when made into a program, will halt when run, something you have even agreed to, that means that by the clear meaning of the words that HHH(DD) should say Halting, but you try to justify why your lie might be correct, all based on lies about what a program actually is, which shows up big by the fact that you have stated that you DD isn't a program, and thus not what it needs to be to use.
>
Sorry, you are just proving how much of a liar you are.