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

Op 17.jun.2025 om 05:07 schreef olcott:

On 6/16/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 In other words you do not understand what every CS graduate
would understand: That once a non-halting behavior pattern
is correctly matched in a finite number of steps that this
conclusively proves non-halting.

Irrelevant, because such a CS graduate will also understand that a finite recursion is not a pattern for non-halting behaviour.
Your HHH has code to abort and halt, so there is no non-halting pattern in it, because it aborts after a finite number of recursions.
Or are you still cheating with the Root variable?