Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error --- Flibble is correct

Am Fri, 18 Jul 2025 18:35:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/18/2025 6:04 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 18/07/2025 20:53, olcott wrote:

No one even attempts yo point out any actual errors.
Joes just said that HHH cannot possibly emulate itself after I have
conclusively proved that it does.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

 
I believe he explained that he was saying that HHH cannot emulate
itself /to completion/.

 
Here is what *she* said On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
 > That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that *HHH cannot
 > simulate DDD past the call to HHH*
>

He is correct in that.  And your PDF shows HHH aborting its emulation
before completion, and so that does not contradict what he was saying.

Yes, that is what I said. Mike got it right and Petey got it wrong.

The most important reviewer at CACM did exchange 20 emails with me to
review my work. He ended up giving up because he did not know x86
assembly language well enough.

Well that's /your/ explanation of why he gave up.  You often accuse

I still have the emails.

Cool, post them.

people here of not understanding C or not understanding x86
sufficiently, when that is never actually the case.  It is always you
who is misunderstanding what is being said.
So obviously this will be another example of the same.  I guess it took
that long for the reviewer to convince himself there was no interesting
"core of truth" that might be behind your paper.
Still - I'm surprised that 20 emails were exchanged.  The reviewer was
obviously extremely conscientious in trying to pin down what you were
trying to say, behind all your confused wordings!
 

He never pointed out a single mistake.
The "mistakes" that have been pointed out in their forum are either
counter-factual
On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
 > *HHH cannot simulate DDD past the call to HHH*

No, that is a fact you continue to assert.

DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement final halt state because the input to HHH(DDD)
specifies the non-halting behavior pattern or recursive simulation
 
is dishonestly paraphrased as the directly executed DDD() reaches its
"return" statement.

LOL no. Those are two different sentences.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.