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
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:27:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <578afc03fbd993108cece21085ce2bf7072fe0b3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me> <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt28vk$1fe7a$1@dont-email.me> <vt2k6t$1onvt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3ef4$2flgf$1@dont-email.me> <vt3fgd$2gu7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6apu$12sjs$2@dont-email.me> <vt6g1f$180qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6lmk$1djk6$1@dont-email.me> <vt7tj4$2iso2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 23:27:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4010619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6605
Lines: 131

On 4/10/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-09 20:35:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/9/2025 1:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 09.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2025 10:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 08.apr.2025 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 4/8/2025 2:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 08.apr.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination
>>>>>>>>> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
>>>>>>>>> would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case there is nothing to prevent, because the finite 
>>>>>>>> string specifies a program that halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This stuff is simply over-your-head.
>>>>>>> HHH(DD) meets the above: *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient competence with the C programming language
>>>>>>> will understand this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone with a little bit of C knowledge understands that if HHH 
>>>>>> returns with a value 0, then DDD halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> NOT ANY OTHER DAMN DDD IN THE UNIVERSE NITWIT.
>>>>>
>>>> If HHH would correctly simulate DD (and the functions called by DD) 
>>>> then the simulated HHH would return to DD and DD would halt.
>>>
>>> Simply over your level of technical competence.
>>>
>>>> But HHH failed to complete the simulation of the halting program,
>>>
>>> HHH is only required to report on the behavior of its
>>> own correct simulation (meaning the according to the
>>> semantics of the C programming language) and would be
>>> incorrect to report on any other behavior.
>>>
>>>> because the programmer was dreaming of an infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> If I didn't have to tell you this hundreds of times and you didn't
>>>> persist in the straw-man deception I would not have called you a 
>>>> nitwit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I really think that you may simply be a troll playing head games.
>>
>> It is not a good idea to think that everybody is just like you.
>>
> 
> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
> It is always correct for any simulating termination
> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
> would otherwise prevent its own termination.
> 
> The only rebuttal to this is to stupidly reject the
> notion that all deciders must always halt.
> 
> 

Which only applies if the Termination Analyzer actually does a correct 
simulation, or evalutates what a correct simultion would do.

It also requires that the input be correctly Simulated.

You have already established that if the Analyzer actually correctly 
simulates this input, then it can't return an answer, as this input (if 
correctly simulated because it includes the code of the HHH that it 
calls) when correctly simulated never returns because that emulator can 
never reach the final state of the input.

Thus, since it must halt, it can't be a correct simulation, and thus the 
results of correctly simulating this input must be based on the actua; 
behavior of a real correct simulator given this EXACT same input, which 
you have shown with HHH1, that it will halt.

So, the problem with your application of that principle, is thst it is 
self-contradictory and thus invalid, as Any simulator trying to follow 
it can't correctly simulate the input.

Either the input just can't be simulated, as it isn't a program because 
it doesn't include the code of the HHH that it calls, and thus your 
principle fails because it assumes a false premise, or the input is a 
program because it includes that code, and thus from the previous 
discussion, HHH doesn't do a correct simulation, and the correct 
simulation is shown to halt.

There is no problem with the fact that decider must always halt, but the 
correlary of that requirement is that no decider can be an always 
correct simulator, in particular, it can never be a correct simulator 
for a non-halting input, and the fact that it "decides" to abort it 
simulation can not be used a proof that the input is non-halting when 
correctly simulated, but you need to look at the actually correct 
simulation of the input.

Thus your phrase "Correctly Simulated by HHH" isn't a valid condition, 
as it doesn't happen.

Sorry, you are just showing that you don't understand what you are 
taloing about, and don't care, because you are just a hypocritical 
pathological liar.