Path: ...!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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 12:27:46 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <1009kqi$as09$1@dont-email.me>
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: Sat, 17 May 2025 11:27:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fec6e91447213fbda2725682e460eb49";
	logging-data="356361"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+YteBkIjP6i4HjVT4aaYt"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7oMDusvn7KVUXPDXkSWhmLTac4Q=
Bytes: 3892

On 2025-05-16 15:05:25 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

They are right that it does not simulate correctly in the sense of
simulating until the simulated process halts. A correct partial
simulation is something else.

-- 
Mikko