Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting ---
 VERIFIED FACT
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:20:24 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <102jesp$3avt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102erpt$2ohps$5@dont-email.me> <102gqt1$3bhe0$2@dont-email.me>
 <102hd3h$3fnmh$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:20:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e6a1a9d2c4ec8df2ebbe13317fee6ee4";
	logging-data="109565"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QHr0+0drQpbwjB7X6Dz8m"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xALT7CJeBhumlaJ//QklhBaco20=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <102hd3h$3fnmh$3@dont-email.me>

Op 13.jun.2025 om 16:37 schreef olcott:
> On 6/13/2025 4:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 12.jun.2025 om 17:30 schreef olcott:
>>
>> Even after many corrections, Olcott repeated his claims without 
>> learning anything from his previous errors.
>> Lack of knowledge does not make someone look stupid, but the 
>> resistance against learning does.
>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
>>> of the counter-example input as such an input would
>>> be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
>>>
>>> // rec routine P
>>> //   §L :if T[P] go to L
>>> //     Return §
>>> // https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
>>> void Strachey_P()
>>> {
>>>    L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? 
>>> redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>>
>>> It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH
>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
>>> final halt state.
>>
>> Showing the failure of HHH to reach the end of the simulation.
> 
> The code of the input to HHH(DD) specifies
> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...

Counter factual, There are only two recursions.
Then HHH does a premature abort, missing the specification in the input 
that the simulated HHH would also do a premature abort and halt.
That HHH is blind for this specification does not change the specification.
So, the following applies to you:

> 
> That you can't understand this is merely a lack
> of sufficient tecnh9cal competence on your part.
> 
> That you continue to fail to show all of the details
> of exactly how DD does reach its simulated "return"
> statement final halt state proves that you know you
> are not competent.

No, *you* fail to show how HHH reaches the correct end of the 
simulation. We see that HHH fails to reach the end of a correct simulation.
That you think that a failure to reach the end of a simulation makes the 
simulation correct, shows that you do not understand the basics of a 
correct simulation.