Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 11:35:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0ddd7ea67c98c9ad5b48dd267a0880e10f173ced@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <FAsVP.790302$BFJ.344089@fx13.ams4> <1005la7$3akrk$3@dont-email.me>
 <tSsVP.790303$BFJ.255821@fx13.ams4> <1005mms$3akrk$4@dont-email.me>
 <rBtVP.134541$0ia.111399@fx11.ams4> <1005t5g$3chps$1@dont-email.me>
 <1006oac$3l6s6$1@dont-email.me> <1007k7l$3qb7l$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 15:57:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="617720"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <1007k7l$3qb7l$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/16/25 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-15 23:25:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2025 5:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 16:35:24 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2025 4:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 16:11:35 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/15/2025 3:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 15:47:16 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem in
>>>>>>>>> that the code that "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH
>>>>>>>>> returns" becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to simulate itself again over
>>>>>>>>> and over until HHH sees this repeating pattern and aborts or both
>>>>>>>>> HHH and DD crash due to OOM error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not possible for HHH to simulate DD because we are already
>>>>>>>> inside DD when we call HHH:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DD we have
>>>>>>> complete proof that you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to write the whole x86utm operating system to make this work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not possible to make this work even by "writing an operating
>>>>>> system"
>>>>>> so whatever you think you are doing it isn't addressing my core 
>>>>>> point:
>>>>>> you are NOT *fully* simulating DD by HHH because you are already 
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> DD when you are calling HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that is intimately familiar with how multi-tasking operating
>>>>> systems work will understand how HHH could emulate itself emulating 
>>>>> its
>>>>> input.
>>>>
>>>> What has multi-tasking got to do with it?  You are talking out of your
>>>> arse, Peter. :)
>>>
>>> Anyone that is intimately familiar with multi-tasking
>>> operating systems will know the details of how HHH
>>> emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>
>> That is an implementation detail that is not required by the problem.
>>
> 
> It is not an implementation detail when people insist
> on rejecting my work because they falsely believe that
> HHH cannot correctly simulate itself simulating DDD.
> 
> 

The issue isn't that can't be an HHH that correctly simulates its input. 
but that HHH doesn't meet the requirements to answer about that behavior.

Sorry, your argument that this is the same HHH and DDD that you claim 
givvce the right answer is like saying your cat is the same as your dog.