Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting
 problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 13:07:44 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3431ec3bd2abdc62d693959664e202aa3bc214bd@i2pn2.org>
References: <f4f759fcc2f0b701a91e38062c25d16534e470af@i2pn2.org>
 <via9kk$kpf2$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org>
 <vilrih$3n2q7$2@dont-email.me>
 <b961b7e79a85fcb3bbd058930fef41e582f7acdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vio31i$dg23$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ccc2cbecfd0e6befd031ed394f1262edd021822@i2pn2.org>
 <viposd$u16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd3385b7f379281e5d476701f96e30538ea85802@i2pn2.org>
 <viqua6$16uvh$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0c7$17d36$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d0683c816f5f63b3a17c8a52e9b691eecc143a8@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0sq$17ga3$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ebbdef8e9070397a2ec3db6dbc37c16f1fe8923@i2pn2.org>
 <vir9n1$1cqu9$1@dont-email.me>
 <visnat$1o5le$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vj0amr$2mpd0$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e1d34cbe07b0dbffe60a12121f2f751b308c1c5@i2pn2.org>
 <vj0d0q$2n835$2@dont-email.me> <vj0glp$2ruve$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj1bno$31ulr$1@dont-email.me>
 <a878bf6ecb0762730ecc95c40e09d6ba93cb5293@i2pn2.org>
 <vj1qeu$35kfh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 18:07:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1743333"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vj1qeu$35kfh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6734
Lines: 119

On 12/7/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/24 6:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/6/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/5/2024 11:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 05.12.2024 um 05:20 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
>>>>>>>>> There may be an extended pause in my comments.
>>>>>>>>> I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you'll solve your halting problem issues before you die.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sure that DD correctly emulated by HHH according to
>>>>>>> the semantics of the C programming language cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own return instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does HHH correctly emulated DD, if it isn't give tne code for the
>>>>>> HHH that DD calls?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have told you many dozens of times HHH and DD share
>>>>> the same global memory space within memory version of the
>>>>> Halt7.obj file.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus you admit that your HHH isn’t the required “pure function” 
>>>> as its
>>>> result is dependent on that contents of that global memory, and not 
>>>> just
>>>> its input, as required by the definition of a global function,
>>>>
>>>
>>> First we have to acknowledge that pure function or not HHH does 
>>> something unprecedented in the history of the halting problem:
>>> HHH does correctly reject its input as non-halting.
>>
>> No, it doesn't do anything "unprecedented".
>>
> 
> Changing the subject to a different criteria
> IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION
> 

Right, which is what *YOU* have done. As your subject says, you are 
talking about the *HALTING PROPBLEM* which has a defined criteeria


> Try and show any example of any prior work such that
> the termination analyzer does return the correct termination
> value where the measure of the behavior of DD is DD emulated
> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.

But that isn't the required measure, so you are just admitting that your 
work is just cheating by using a strawman deception
> 
> Changing the subject to a different criteria
> IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION

Right, so you are just admitting that you whole work has been based on 
cheating by using the strawman deception

> 
> HHH can also be based on a C language interpreter or a UTM
> as long as it gets the same result for the same criteria.

But the only criteria it is ALLOWED to be measured by is the ACTUAL 
criteria, which is based on the actual behavior of the *PROGRAM* the 
input represents, which in this case is the DD that calls the HHH that 
you claim gives the correct answer.

That program HALTS when run, and thus HHH saying it doesn't is WRONG, 
and you are shown to be just a stupid cheater trying to pull a deception 
by using the wrong criteria.

> 
> Changing the subject to a different criteria
> IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION

Right, so you are just admitting that you whole work has been based on 
cheating by using the strawman deception

Note, all you have shown is that your logic is based on a total 
disreguard for the definitions of the system, and thus is based on LIES 
and FALSEHOODS, just like you seem to not think that human laws apply to 
you (as shown by your claim that you owning child pornography was "ok" 
because the law didn't apply to you since you were "God".

It looks like you will shortly be coming to face with the being that put 
into place the actual laws, and you will get to see how little your 
ideas of what is right matter compared to what has been DEFINED to be right.

Sorry if that offends you, but that is the facts, you are not God, not 
even being the "creator" of the fields you claim to be talking about, 
and thus you are subject to the rules of that field.

If you want to play in a different field, you need to find it defined by 
someone else and follow their rules, or do the work to actually create 
it yourself, but it seems you don't know enough to actually do that, 
because you just don't understand how logic actually works.