Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

On 7/11/25 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2025 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:15:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 12:45:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
*Here is HHH matching that pattern*
executed HHH simulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls emulated emulated HHH(DDD)
>
*Here is the 197 page full execution trace of that*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

>
That trace is a little long. Where in that trace is the forth level of
recursive simulation statrted?
>

After the non-terminating behavior pattern is matched
on line 996
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
HHH rejects DDD as specifying non-halting behavior.

>
This is a good example of what I meant in another comment when
I said that you don't answer questions.
>

 When you ask an incorrect question, like you did I provide
an answer to the corrected question.

So, you ADMIT that you arguement is based on strawmen.

 (1) HHH(DDD) is executed
(2) HHH emulates DDD
(3) Emulated DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
(4) Emulated HHH emulates DDD
(5) this DDD calls HHH(DDD) again

At which point the emulated HHH will abort its emulation and return, and thus DDD will halt.
Thus HHH didn't "Correctly" simulate the input.
Since you have shown that the code of HHH is part of the input that HHH looks at, and that is claimed to be the code fro Halt7.c, that means there is only one possible "HHH" in the program, the one that aborts at that point, and thus that IS what it does.

 We can know that HHH does emulate itself emulating
DDD because the first instruction of HHH [00001606]
is reached once when invoked in main() (page 38)
and again (page 47) after DDD emulated by HHH calls
HHH(DDD) [000021de] (page 45). This emulated DDD
calls HHH(DDD) On page 187.

Which proves that HHH considers the code for HHH ss part of the input, and thus that HHH, since it has the identical code to the simulating HHH must act exactly like it does.
Thus, HHH is incorrect to presume this is a non-halting pattern,

 DDD emulated by HHH has now met its non halting
behavior pattern on line 996:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 

And that pattern just isn't non-halting, and thus your "proof" is just based on lies.
It can't be a non-halting pattern, as that exact pattern exists in that master trace of every step as it traces the execution pattern of HHH, and that halts, thus you re just LYING to say it is a non-halting pattern.