Sujet : Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. May 2025, 16:45:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
References :  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
 On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>
Look at their replies to this post.
Not a one of them will agree that
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return; // final halt state
}
>
When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>
They have consistently disagreed with this
simple point for three years.
>
I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>
>
I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's
otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
>
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>
 Nope.
 From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD is "impossible" input or not.
 
DD has the standard form of the "impossible" input.
HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer