Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.

The definition of HHH is missing.
(Don't bother answering this question. We know what you would say.)

I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
lied about this at the bottom.
 
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}
 
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. 

HHH(DDD) will run in infinite loop, which conforms to Halting Problem proof..

When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

This looks like a problem specification, but you said "Halting Problem" is
incorrect. Peter Olcott's Own Problem is never clear.

On 6/27/2025 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com
 > wrote:
 >
 >> I know that DDD .... simulated by HHH cannot
 >> possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement
 >> final halt state because the execution trace
 >> conclusively proves this.
 >
 > Everybody else knows this, too, and nobody has
 > said otherwise. *The conclusion is that the*
 > *simulation by HHH is incorrect*
 >
 
*That last sentence is an intentional falsehood*

Actually, it is olcott who lies. The evidence keeps accumulating for years.
Because the evidences (olcott's posts) show that olcott knows what the HP says,
he deliberately and very stubbornly wants to conclude differently by trying
every possible way (for years, and think he will hit the target).

Because olcott is so Computer-Science-Stupid (He doesn't understand the
meaning of logic-IF. He can't write a TM that computes the length of its 
input. The proof of a piece of C program is its compiled assembly,...) 
to lie?

I prefer to say olcott deliberately lies, because he does experiment with a
real program (where he tried various ways to make it interpret-able as what he
claims) he knows what happens and makes false reports (not what has actually
happened, like this post, he knows what is inappropriate and not good to his
claim) to 'prove' his claim even thought there is no logical connection 
(always like to saying "a white dog", while pointing to a black cat). 
It is still so, hardly to see olcott posts real thing instead of confusing
equivocal arguments.