Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT

On 6/16/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2025 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.

>
And it seems you don't understand that the problem is that while, yes, if HHH does infact do a correct simulation, it will not reach a final state, that fact only applie *IF* HHH does that, and all the other HHHs which differ see different inputs.
>

>
*I should have said*
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then DDD never reaches its simulated "return" statement
final halt state.
>

>
So?
>
Since that isn't the criteria that the decider is supposed to answer by, it is just a strawman.
>

 *You merely dishonestly changed the subject*

No I didn't, the subject is about "Halting"
Halting is defined for PROGRAMS

 Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show
exactly how the below (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this
challenge and change the subject.
    (a) One of more instructions of DDD are correctly
   simulated by some simulating termination analyzer HHH.
    (b) None of the above simulated DDD instances ever
   reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.

Since that isn't the definition of Halting/Non-Halting, it is just a strawman.
Non-Halting isn't just that a partial simulation doesn't reach a final state, and that is what your (a) describes, as to be NOT partial, it must simulate *ALL* the instructions.
The fuller definition of non-halting is that a machine is non-halting if it will not reach a final state performing an UNBOUNDED number of steps.
Doing only a finite number, and not reaching a final state is just indeterminate about halting, as no actual machine will stop running at that point, it *WILL* either reach a final state in a finite number of steps, or continue running for an UNBOUNDED number of steps.
Your partial simulations just are not "correct", just "partially correct".

 Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show
exactly how the above (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this
challenge and change the subject.
 

because your criteria is just invalid, and based on you LIES by misdefinitions.
By your logic a 1 mile road that you got off after walking 50 feet, is never ending, because you did not get to the end.
Remember, each of the DDD you talk about above are *DIFFERENT* as the include the code of the SPECIFIC HHH that you claim is looking at it.
Either that or you can't simulate "the input" past the call instruction, as the code after that isn't part of "the input"
You are just caught in your lies.