Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

On 2025-07-11 17:32:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/11/2025 11:07 AM, dbush wrote:

On 7/11/2025 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.

 On 7/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

That changes the words of the question thus becomes
the strawman error.

 

 *I do finally have a rebuttal to your other issue*
A Turing Machine halt decider has never been able
to report on the behavior of any directly executed
Turing Machine because anything besides finite
strings are outside of the domain of every TM decider.

Mainly because there are no Turing machine halt deciders. But there
are partial halt deciders that can report correctly on some directly
executed Turing machines but fail to report on others.
--
Mikko