Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)

On 12/7/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 5:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 4:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 12:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 6:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/6/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/6/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/6/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2024 11:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.12.2024 um 05:20 schrieb olcott:

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.

>
Maybe you'll solve your halting problem issues before you die.
>

>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
    HHH(DD);
}
>
>
I am sure that DD correctly emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the C programming language cannot possibly
reach its own return instruction final halt state.

>
How does HHH correctly emulated DD, if it isn't give tne code for the
HHH that DD calls?
>

>
As I have told you many dozens of times HHH and DD share
the same global memory space within memory version of the
Halt7.obj file.
>

>
And thus you admit that your HHH isn’t the required “pure function” as its
result is dependent on that contents of that global memory, and not just
its input, as required by the definition of a global function,
>

>
First we have to acknowledge that pure function or not HHH does something unprecedented in the history of the halting problem:
HHH does correctly reject its input as non-halting.

>
No, it doesn't do anything "unprecedented".
>

>
Changing the subject to a different criteria
IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION
>

>
Right, which is what *YOU* have done. As your subject says, you are talking about the *HALTING PROPBLEM* which has a defined criteeria
>

>
When I say the the work that I accomplished ON MY CRITERIA
has never been done before IT IS WOEFULLY DISHONEST to
rebut this by changing the subject to some other criteria.
>

>
>
Then the work you have accopmllished is just a LIE.
>
Just like the climare and election deniers.
>

>
I wrote a paper on climate change
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

>
>
So? Your claim you get to redefine the terms of the problem allow the deniers to do the same.
>

>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
>
>
When I say that simulating termination analyzer HHH does
correctly reject DD on the basis that DD emulated by HHH**
does not halt THIS IS A MATTER OF FACT.

>
But is irrelevent for the problem you claim to be working on,

 First you must understand it is true otherwise we cannot
proceed to the next step of relevance.
 

No, first you must understand that the claim, in the context of the Halting Problem, is just a LIE.
All you are doing is PROVING beyond a doubt, that you are nothing but a pathological liar that doesn't care about the truth,
Sorry, but that IS a fact.
And, your claim is just meaningless garbage, because either you admit that your HHH isn't a pure function, and thus your claim is false, as I have shown how to make a non-pure version of HHH that can do what you say is impossible, or you need to admit that you HHH, by using code that isn't the input, fails to meet the requirements, or, you have to add HHH to the input, and then you lie about "no HHH" is sperious, as there can only be ONE HHH that is the HHH that DD calls, and the other HHHs need to be put elsewhere in memory, and some of them WILL be able to emulate that full input to completion.
So, your claim that your claim is correct, is just a blantant lie that you implicitly admit to by not even trying to refute the error pointed out.
Sorry, but you are just confirming that you just don't know what you are doing, amd that will be your legacy when you die soon.