Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)

On 4/10/25 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/10/2025 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.apr.2025 om 22:35 schreef olcott:

On 4/9/2025 1:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:

>
On 4/8/2025 10:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.apr.2025 om 17:13 schreef olcott:

On 4/8/2025 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.apr.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott:

>
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);
}
>
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
would otherwise prevent its own termination.

>
>
In this case there is nothing to prevent, because the finite string specifies a program that halts.

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
This stuff is simply over-your-head.
HHH(DD) meets the above: *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
Anyone with sufficient competence with the C programming language
will understand this.
>

Everyone with a little bit of C knowledge understands that if HHH returns with a value 0, then DDD halts.

>
DDD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HHH
NOT ANY OTHER DAMN DDD IN THE UNIVERSE NITWIT.
>

If HHH would correctly simulate DD (and the functions called by DD) then the simulated HHH would return to DD and DD would halt.

>
Simply over your level of technical competence.

>
Ad hominem attack in an attempt to hide that no rebuttal exists.
>

>

But HHH failed to complete the simulation of the halting program,

>
HHH is only required to report on the behavior of its
own correct simulation (meaning the according to the
semantics of the C programming language) and would be
incorrect to report on any other behavior.

>
Yes, HHH correctly reports that it failed to complete the simulation.
>

>

because the programmer was dreaming of an infinite recursion.
>
If I didn't have to tell you this hundreds of times and you didn't
persist in the straw-man deception I would not have called you a nitwit.
>
>

>
I really think that you may simply be a troll playing head games.
>

>
You are thinking many things that are wrong.

 The things that I say are proven completely correct
entirely on the basis of the meaning of their words.
 

You don't KNOW the meaning of the words, so you are just proving your stupidity and that you are a pathological liar.