Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT

On 6/14/2025 8:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 12:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/25 10:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 4:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.jun.2025 om 17:30 schreef olcott:
>
Even after many corrections, Olcott repeated his claims without learning anything from his previous errors.
Lack of knowledge does not make someone look stupid, but the resistance against learning does.
>

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
>
// rec routine P
//   §L :if T[P] go to L
//     Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
void Strachey_P()
{
   L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
   return;
}
>
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article- abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.

>
Showing the failure of HHH to reach the end of the simulation.

>
The code of the input to HHH(DD) specifies
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...

>
>
Then you are lying that HHH will abort and return 0.
>
That is your problem, you world is based on being able to just lie about what you want.
>

>
That you can't understand this is merely a lack
of sufficient tecnh9cal competence on your part.
>

>
No, it is merely a lack of honesty on your part.
>

That you continue to fail to show all of the details
of exactly how DD does reach its simulated "return"
statement final halt state proves that you know you
are not competent.
>
>

>
But DD DOES reach its final state

THE SIMULATED DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS SIMULATED FINAL
YOU DAMNED JACKASS.
>

>
So you erroneously think. I have shown how it does.

You have never shown how DDD correctly emulated by
simulating termination analyzer HHH reaches its own
simulated final halt state.

>
And why should I?
>

>
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
>
>
* Condemned to actual Hell

>
SO, what is the lie?
>
I am just pointing out that your strawman criteria is just invalid.
>

>
You can not show all of the details of how and why
it is proved to be invalid because my criteria is correct.
When you try to go counter-factual you look really silly.

 The problem statement: Design a PROGRAM that takes the representation of a PROGRAM and its input, and determines if that PROGRAM will halt when run.
 

The term representation is misleading thus inaccurate.
A partial halt decider takes a finite string that encodes
a sequence of state changes.

You have stipulated that you input is JUST the code for the C function D/DD/DDD and nothing else.
 

I have corrected you on this hundreds of times.
Your brain damage must be quite severe.

Since the definition of a program includes a FULL and DETAILED listing of ALL the algorithm used, and the execution of DDD will call HHH, then the code of HHH is part of the program DDD, and thus must be included as part of the input.
 

Yes. What the Hell did you think that HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD meant?

Failure to do that makes the input not a full representation of the program to be decided, and thus a valid input.
 Sorry, you have been told this for quite a while, and your refusal to see it just shows how stupid you are, and how much you believe your own lies.
 

We have been over this point many hundreds of times.
You can't remember the same point from one post to the next.

>

How is that a lie.
>
Note, I never say that *IF* HHH does a correct simulation, that it can not reach a final state, just that your HHH doesn't do that correct simulation, and thus that criteria is non-sense.
>

>
HHH does do the minimum required for a correct decision.

 No, since its decision is wrong.
 

Since I challenged you to show how it was wrong and
you never did it seems probable that you are a liar.
When the input to HHH(DDD) is correctly simulated by
simulating termination analyzer HHH it cannot possibly
reach its "return" statement final halt state. The one
time that you tried to show otherwise you cheated.
Most of the other people here are not even technically
competent to cheat. All of their rebuttals are mere
dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting
reasoning.

HHH(DDD) asks HHH to reply with the behavior of DDD when run,

int main()
{
   DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD)
}
Show me anywhere in any computer science where (and how) a
partial halt decider reports on the behavior of its caller.

HHH(DDD) returns 0, defined to mean its input represents a non-halting program.
 

It never has actually been about the vague idea of "represents".
It has always been the precise idea of the sequence of state
changes that are actually specified by its input.

DDD() will halt, making that answer wrong.
 That is one of your fundamental errors, you think wrong answers can be right if you lie well enough.
 

That answer only seems wrong under the incorrect assumption
that partial halt deciders are supposed to report on the
behavior of their caller.
Once you understand that computer science does not allow
partial halt deciders to report on the behavior of their
caller then your mistake is corrected.

>

You yourself condemn the use of strawmen, but then, you always projected your errors onto others, just like Trump, who seems to be your model for behavior and logic.
>
You logic is based on the need to say that two things that are very different are actually exactly the same thing.
>
That is just a LIE. Just like most of what you say.

>
>

 

That you say that I am a liar and you don't mean intentional
falsehood is by itself the kind of reckless disregard for the
truth that loses defamation cases.
That you say that I am a liar and cannot correctly point
out any mistake is also the kind of reckless disregard for
the truth that loses defamation cases.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer