Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/23/25 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 18:46:10 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/22/2025 1:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 22/05/2025 19:16, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

In other words you are too scatterbrained to keep
focused on a single point until closure is achieved.

>
Closure happened in 1936.
>

>
*CLOSURE ON THIS POINT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED*
>
When you try to define an input D to simulating termination
analyzer H that actually does the opposite of whatever value
that H returns you find that this
KEY ELEMENT OF THE CONVENTIONAL HALTING
PROBLEM PROOFS CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

>
Unless H is a counter-example to the Church-Turing thesis it
is possible to construct such D and prove that H is not a
halting decider.
>

 When you do that within the abstraction of Turing Machines
people get confused and conflate the computation that
the halt decider is contained within as its own input.

No, and in fact, the explictiness of Turing Machines makes that confusion impossible.
Note, it is quite possible that they just happen to be the same computation, and thus will do the same thing.

 *This mistake is more obvious when it is made concrete*
 int main()
{
   DD(); // How does the HHH that DD calls report
}       // on the behavior of its caller?
 

No, THAT is the hiding of the explictness, and makes your claim seem reasonable.
The fact is that HHH is NOT being asked about "the behavior of its caller", but about "the behavior of the program provided as its input".
The fact they represent the same program is irrelevent.
HHH(DD), if HHH and DD are programs, means that HHH(DD) will return the same answer to EVERYONE, regardless of who it is, that it the nature of programs. And by the construction of DD, if actually followed, will also be a program that does the same thing every time (since it has no input). Note, HHH needs to be given the COMPLETE representation of DD, which means ALL of its code, and thus that input includes the HHH that it calls that is the HHH that is claimed to be giving the right answer, which is the HHH that DOES abort and return 0.
Thus, DD() is ALWAYS a halting computation by your stipulations, and HHH(DD) will always abort and return 0 and thus is wrong.
Of course, then you blow up your whole argument by then claiming that that isn't what you have stipulated HHH and DD to be, but they are NOT PROGRAMS, and thus even talking about them in program terms is the fallacy of Catergory Error.
No HHH can correctly simulate a non-program input, as simulation is a property of programs. And non-programs do not have a Halting Property, as that is just a property of Programs.
Thus, you are just proving your utter stupidity.