Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

On 7/11/2025 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:

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

Does not exist, as you have admitted on the record:
On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
 > A halt decider cannot exist
On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> And the halting function below is not a computable function:
 >>
 >
 > It is NEVER a computable function
 >
 >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
 >>
 >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
 >>
 >> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 >> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
 > When we define the HP as having H return a value
 > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
 > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
 > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
 > in to a problem having no solution.
On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
 > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
 > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
 > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
 > Of course this is impossible.
On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
 > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
 > do not, then no single program can do this.
On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed
On 5/13/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:
 > There is no time that we are ever going to directly
 > encode omniscience into a computer program. The
 > screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
 > literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.