Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

On 7/22/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/22/25 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/22/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/21/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/21/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/21/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

>

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using.

>

This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.

>

It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.

>
>

It is also honest and truthful that people
that deny verified facts are either liars
or lack sufficient technical competence.

>

What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the kind. They
are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.

>
>
>

*One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*

>

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH.

>

Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times over by
several people.

>

HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD

>

You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your language, which
could be construed to mean practically anything.

>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

>

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

>

Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code
of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according
to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that this emulation is correct.

>
That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie. Whatever HHH
might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove" that the
emulation is correct.  To prove that is likely impossible in principle,
that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently.
>

>
[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]

>
Which isn't a program, you need to include the code for HHH.
>

>
*Yet again your attention deficit disorder*
I have told you countless times that all of
the machine code for every function is in
the same global memory space of halt7.obj.

>
Doesn't matter what "is in the memory space", what matters is what is considedred part of the program, and thus part of the input.
>

>
Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless
HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.

 But your HHH DOES stop running.
 

HHH would not stop running unless HHH aborts its
simulation this proves that the input specifies
non-halting behavior.

The DDD built on your hypothetical HHH that doesn't is a different DDD then the given to your real HHH, and thus its behavior is irrelevent.
 

>
HHH emulates DDD and then emulates itself emulating DDD
until it sees that this emulated emulated DDD calls
HHH(DDD) to do this again.
>

  Whixh means you admirt that you "input" above is incomplete, as HHH can't "emulate itself" unless it is in the input that it uses.
 THus we have diffferent input when we have different HHHs.
 Your arguments to the contray are just admitting that neither your HHH or your DDD are in the category of Programs, as required by the problem, and thus your whole argument is a category error.
 All you are doing it just proving and confirming that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, and doesn't care about that error, as you think lies and strawmen are acceptable logic.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer