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

On 5/18/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2025 9:08 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 19/05/2025 02:24, olcott wrote:

It was stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD.

>
That's all right then.
>
It's stipulated that you are correct.
>

 Unless is it known that one C function
cannot possibly simulate another the
stipulation must be accepted by anyone
wanting an honest dialogue.
 

How can one simulate code that isn't given?
The issue is that your representation for your DDD doesn't include the code for the HHH that it uses, and in fact, you don't even define what code that is, just where to find it, and allow that to change.
Thus, your DDD doesn't HAVE defined behavior, as what it will actually end up doing is based on external conditions.
That puts it outside the realm of computation theory, which deals with things that are defined, which is why Halt Deciders are defined to have as their input "Programs" and Programs are defined to include all their code.
Thus, your admittion that your DDD isn't actually a progrmm just puts all your logic into a category error.
The other problem with your stipulation, is that you have also stipulated that HHH is as defined in your published Halt7.c file, and since that HHH aborts its simulation, it is a fact that it doesn't correctly simulate this input.
Having Contradictory Stipulations just makes an argument unsound and its results invalid. Continuing such an argument after the error has been pointed out and not fixing it, just makes the person a pathological liar, for continuing to claim something as true, when they should know that it isn't.