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

On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>

In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
count as non-haltign.

>
Halting means reaching a final halt state.

 And non-halting means unlimited execution.
 

Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
final halt state. If it was not that way then smashing a
computer with a sledge hammer would "prove" that an infinite
loop halts.
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
That the directly executed DDD() halts does not contradict
this because directly executing processes are outside of
the domain of partial halt deciders. HHH is only accountable
for the actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer