Sujet : Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. May 2025, 03:02:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <28e3bf7570b704d952e814b5e8a50bb11cbb1246@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/15/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:
I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>
In other words you believe that professor Sipser
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
No, you just don't know the meaning of them.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Remember, he works in Computation Theory, and thus talks about PROGRAMS, these BY DEFINITION include all of their algrorithm/code as part of themselves.
You have admitted/stipuated that YOUR "DD" and "DDD" are NOT program, but just (non-leaf) "C functions", and thus his statement just doesn't apply to your system.
Also, "its simulated D would never stop runnign unless aborted" means exactly that, The D that H was given (when convered to being a program as you used to mean), which includes ALL of the the it uses, and thus since it was built from you actual H, the one that aborts and returns non-halting, when (correctly) simulated (as that is the only simulate that matters unless said explicitly) *WILL* halt, it just isn't the simulation that your H sees, because it stopped when it hadn't proven the needed condition,
The fact you you are just so ignorant of the words he uses, and have projected into them your lies. doesn't change the meaning he took them to be.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are just an ignorant pathological liar.