Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

On 15/04/2025 02:02, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/14/2025 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

<snip>

THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A
CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER?

Yes.

To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no bearing on
its direct execution.
>

>
THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES

>
Irrelevant.

  THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY

Far from it. In fact it's very very true, and the all-caps foot-stamping doesn't help your case one jot.

THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.

It doesn't matter how they work. In this case what matters is /whether/ your termination analyser works. The mainstream view is that a termination analyser /can't/ work in the general case, and to date you have done nothing to put any dents into that view.
Either your decider works 100% of the time or it doesn't. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, game over. But as Turing showed, if it /does/ work it can be incorporated into a program that will stop it working. Clearly you already know this --- your constant re-posting of your DDD() function shows that you're familiar with the way this is done --- so one can't help but wondering why you continue to flog your very dead horse.
Logic shows that you're wrong. Presumably you disagree with the logic, but that only works if the real world agrees with you. If you could come up with a working termination analyser that would obviously prove your point, but you would have to be able to show that it works correctly for arbitrary programs, without exception. This you have singularly failed to do.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within