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

On 6/15/25 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-14 13:58:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/13/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-12 15:30:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

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

>
Strachey only informally presents the idea of the proof. Formalism
and details needed in a rigorous proof is not shown.
>

It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.

>
That "cannot possibly" is not a part of any verifiable fact as
it is not sufficiently well-defined for a verification. What
cannot be stated cearly and unambiguoulsy cannot be a verified
fact.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
It is a self-evidently true verified fact that DDD
correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "ret" instruction final halt state in
1 to ∞ steps of correct emulation of DDD by HHH.

>
That does not make sense.

 If you are ignorant enough then 2 + 3 = 5 would make no sense.

So, why does it makes sense for HHH to look at its input, and see something other than what is there, a program that calls this HHH that will abort and return 0 to it.

 

If you don't know what "self-evidently true"
or "fact" mean you should not use those expressions. A statement is
"self-evidently true" if it can be seen to be true even the facts are
not known,

 WRONG, all relevant facts must be wrong or
"understanding its meaning" will not occur.
 In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

WHich is irrelevent in formal logic, as there are no "self-evident" propositions other than the axioms of the system.
You are just showing you ignorance of the words you are using.

 

and "fact" is a statement that cannot. Therefore no fact
is self-evidently true.
>

 This is the key new philosophical insight that I have
had into the fundamental nature of analytical truth.

But one based on the lies that you have been telling yourself, and thus not a "truth" at all.

 Facts are expressions of language that are stipulated
to be true. "cats are animals" is stipulated to be
true on the basis of the stipulated meaning of those
words. 猫是动物 says the same thing.

Which is irrelevent in the sort of formal system you are talking about,

 

Everyone that does not agree has less than a first
year CS student's understanding of the C programming
language.

>
That does not follow from anything above and is far from any truth.
>

 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 Anyone that does not understand that the above function
does not halt has far less than a first year CS student
degree of understanding.
 

And who says it doesn't
That you keep on useing bad examples just shows your stupidity
It seems you think Strawman are your knights in shining armor that will protect you lies.
Sorry, they are just fuel for the fires that are burning up your reputation.