Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:48:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/26/2025 3:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/25/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

Oh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.

The actual code has always been based on an x86 emulator that emulates
finite strings of x86 machine code bytes.

But does DDD call whatever is behind the name "HHH" or does it call the
fixed code that aborts just before the second recursive call? Because
DDD calling a modified HHH' is a different program.

When HHH emulates DDD then DDD calls HHH(DDD) based on whatever code is
at machine address 000015d2.

Ok, so modifying HHH to simulate further also changes the input DDD,
because it calls the same address. Gotcha.

For three years everyone here acts like it is impossible for them to
understand that the correct emulation of an input that calls its own
emulator HHH(DDD) can possibly be different than the emulation of the
same input that does not call its own emulator HHH1(DDD).

It is not impossible to understand. It is wrong.

Since the execution trace conclusively proves that it is correct your
mere intuition to the contrary is proven to be incorrect.

The trace only shows it is different. It remains to be shown that the
abort was correct.

If we prefix all programs we pass to HHH with DDD, they should not be
aborted as if the were the same.
If HHH were a correct simulator, it would produce the same behaviour as
an UTM. (HHH1 is the same as HHH, right?)

Right?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.