Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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 21:46:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <1008t99$66kl$1@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>
 <1007kgq$3qb7l$9@dont-email.me> <1007mp8$3r37u$1@dont-email.me>
 <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me>
 <0c840682a8d2a302194e8162877ef7398379ad84@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 04:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="203413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jP7w08eDhxQEfKZFzyyXl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+A5zKamLb54P3kiVRXvHmSpJpRs=
In-Reply-To: <0c840682a8d2a302194e8162877ef7398379ad84@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-6, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 3732

On 5/16/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

<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

THIS HAS ONE MEANING
     *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

its simulated input calls HHH in recursive emulation.
If this recursive emulation is not aborted then DD() never stops.

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