Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 10:10:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <1007kgq$3qb7l$9@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 17:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a793c50ac46b1404361ae4f1062ef558";
	logging-data="4009205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JpkPqsBUzbG/lJjm/BA2j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TR/YfVqiEXoiEO4iS0zTVUXSDIE=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-4, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <1006on8$3l9t7$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/16/2025 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-16 01:21:04 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/15/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2025 00:43, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you believe that professor Sipser
>>>> screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
>>>
>>> Or maybe he just knows what 'if' means.
>>>
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> It is a verified fact that HHH does simulate DD according
>> to the rules of the x86 language, thus correctly
>>
>> until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DD
>> would never stop running unless aborted
> 
> Otherwise true but the "correctly" is not verified.
> 

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.


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