Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:04 schreef olcott:

On 6/8/2025 10:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 6/8/2025 10:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

Do not imply that I support your claims.

>
I am not implying anything. I am directly stating
that you have agreed that when DDD is correctly simulated
by HHH that it cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" instruction and terminate normally.

>
Endless recursion is endless recursion.  Correctly simulated endless
recursion is endless recursion.

 Great. No one else besides you and I agree that DDD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

Nobody denied it. You are fighting windmills.
We all agree that your HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation of the input. An input that specifies a halting program, but HHH cannot simulate it.

 

 This has no useful or interesting
consequences.  Do you agree?
>

 It is very useful because it is isomorphic to this:
(The standard Halting Problem counter-example input)
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 

Indeed, it shows that simulation is not the right way to try to refute the proof of the halting theorem, because a simulator will never be able to simulate itself correctly up to the end.