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

On 4/10/25 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/10/2025 5:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/9/25 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/9/2025 9:11 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/9/2025 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/9/2025 3:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/9/2025 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

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.

>
Which means HHH has conflicting requirements,

>
No, it just means that the ones that you have
been saying are f-cked up and no-one noticed this before.
>
 > because to perform a
 > correct simulation of its input it cannot halt itself, and therefore
 > can't report that.
In other words you simply "don't believe in" the variant
form of mathematical induction that HHH uses.

>
No, because the form it uses is "changing the input".
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

>
I never changed the input.That you say that I have
changed the input is intentional deception.
>

>
OF course you do, or you are admitting that you are just a liar, and your emulator isn't just emulating its input.
>
Either the input includes all the code it calls, or it just can't be emulated by your rules.
>

 As the code itself conclusively proves and you have been
countlessly reminded of for several years it has always
emulated all of the code that is reachable from P,PP,D,DD,DDD.

And thus is not a pure function, and thus not a proper program.
Also, it DOESN'T emualate *ALL* of the code, as it stops in the midle.

 

Your problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about because you beleive your own lies.

 It is very stupid to say that they are lies when you understand
that I accept what I say as true. It is actionable libel for you
to say that I tell lies when you know that I believe what I say.
Theoretically this could cost you your house.
 

But, since the language of the field you are talking in is defined, your own made up definitions don't apply. All you are doing is ADMITTING that you are just a liar using the fallicy of wrong definitions, a form of the strawman.
Sorry, the fact that you "beleive" what you say isn't a defense, when your "beleif" is based on a reckless disregard for the truth.
As I point out, you are a PATHOLOGICAL liar, which is a liar that can't understand the nature of truth. It still means you statements are LIE per the legal and dictionary definition of the word.
Sprry, but you are unlikely to find a lawyer willing to take on such a case, as the counter-suit would cost him too much, and you don't really have a leg to stand on. It could well kill you, as losing all your assets in the counter suit would make it hard to pay for you cancer treatments.
Think about it, are you willing to bet your actual life on such a thing.
All you are doing is showing you understand law less than you understand logic and programming, which you have already proved you don't understand.