Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 20:23:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0c840682a8d2a302194e8162877ef7398379ad84@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1005v0p$3b07v$1@dont-email.me>
 <10063u0$3dmiv$1@dont-email.me> <1006on8$3l9t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kgq$3qb7l$9@dont-email.me> <1007mp8$3r37u$1@dont-email.me>
 <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 00:38:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="672722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me>

On 5/16/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 10:48 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/05/2025 16:10, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Anyone that knows C can tell that when HHH does simulate
>>> DDD correctly that it keeps getting deeper in recursive
>>> simulation until aborted or OOM error.
>>
>> Anyone who knows C knows that there isn't much HHH can do with the 
>> pointer value it's given. It can call DDD:
>>
>> (*p)();
>>
> 
> Sure when you make sure to totally ignore crucial
> words in the specification of *HHH SIMULATES ITS INPUT*
> then by using the strawman error on these dishonestly
> changed words they are easy to rebut.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> On the other hand when honest C programmers see
> those words they will think of something like a C
> interpreter written in C is doing the simulation.
> 

Nope, I have explained it, but it seems you are just to stupid to 
understand (and if you stop here you will just prove your stupidity)


Yes, H uses its partial simulation to make the decision, and that can be 
from the partial simulation.

But the criteria about being non-halting is based at looking at the 
hypothetical correct simulation of this exact input (that is the meaninf 
of its simulated input would not halt) and if that simulation will ever 
reach a final state, which it does.

If you meant the partial simulation that H does, then you shouldn't have 
refernce the simulatio of the input, but the simulation done by H,

Of course, with your interpreation, a SHD could just stop its simulation 
and say it won't reach the end because I stopped here, as that is 
EXACTLY the logic that you are using, and just say that all input are 
non-halting.

Sorry, you ligic is just proved to be incorrect and stupid.