Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/5/25 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 10:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

What constitutes halting problem pathological input:
>
Input that would cause infinite recursion when using a decider of the
simulating kind.
>
Such input forms a category error which results in the halting problem
being ill-formed as currently defined.
>
/Flibble

 I prefer to look at it as a counter-example that refutes
all of the halting problem proofs.
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Which isn't a program until you include the SPECIFIC HHH that it refutes, and thus your talk about correctly emulated by HHH is just a lie.

 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
 The x86utm operating system includes fully
operational HHH and DD.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 When HHH computes the mapping from *its input* to
the behavior of DD emulated by HHH this includes
HHH emulating itself emulating DD. This matches
the infinite recursion behavior pattern.
 

And *ITS INPUT*, for the HHH that answers 0, is the representation of a program that will halt when run or correctly emulated.
And that HHH just doesn't "correctly emulate" its input, since BY DEFINITION, a correct emulation doesn't stop until the final state is reached, and the concept of this input "correctly emulated by HHH" is just an oxymoron showing that you are just a moron.

Thus the Halting Problem's "impossible" input
is correctly determined to be non-halting.
 

Nope, it halts, so can't be correctly determined" to be non-halting,
And your claimed criteria is just a category error and a lie.