Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT +++

On 2025-06-15 14:16:51 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/15/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-14 13:58:48 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/13/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-12 15:30:05 +0000, olcott said:
 

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
 // rec routine P
//   §L :if T[P] go to L
//     Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
void Strachey_P()
{
   L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
   return;
}
 https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext

 Strachey only informally presents the idea of the proof. Formalism
and details needed in a rigorous proof is not shown.
 

It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.

 That "cannot possibly" is not a part of any verifiable fact as
it is not sufficiently well-defined for a verification. What
cannot be stated cearly and unambiguoulsy cannot be a verified
fact.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 It is a self-evidently true verified fact that DDD
correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "ret" instruction final halt state in
1 to ∞ steps of correct emulation of DDD by HHH.

 That does not make sense.

 If you are ignorant enough then 2 + 3 = 5 would make no sense.

Anyway it does make enough sense that those who particiapate in
these discussion can understand at least the main meaning of it.

If you don't know what "self-evidently true"
or "fact" mean you should not use those expressions. A statement is
"self-evidently true" if it can be seen to be true even the facts are
not known,

 WRONG, all relevant facts must be wrong or
"understanding its meaning" will not occur.

In the case we were discussed all or at least sufficienlty many
of your "facts" are wrong.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

Apparently you don't know what the above means or wehther it is
to the current discussion, which is not about epistemology.
--
Mikko