Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 20:18:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <642c239a5ec94044a3768f1dbef9609a933a2e8e@i2pn2.org>
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$9@dont-email.me>
 <35622a60b91ddffe7ee4e07f96efa5c449aa4555@i2pn2.org>
 <1008j5u$j63$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 00:38:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="672722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1008j5u$j63$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/16/25 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/16/25 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2025 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-16 01:21:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/05/2025 00:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you believe that professor Sipser
>>>>>>> screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe he just knows what 'if' means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <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 then
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that HHH does simulate DD according
>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language, thus correctly
>>>>>
>>>>> until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DD
>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise true but the "correctly" is not verified.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When we fix DDD to be a program, by including the code for the HHH 
>> that is using it, we can tell that if this HHH does simulate its input 
>> correctly, then HHH will never answer.
>>
> 
> Yes.
> 
> <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 then
> 
> proves that a partial simulation is correct
>      *H correctly simulates its input D until*

*THE (CORRECT) SIMULATION OF THAT INPUT WILL NOT HALT.

> 
> Proves that it is referring to the HHH that you referred to
>      *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
> 

The simulation that gives the evidence is the partial simulation.

The evidence needs to be about the correct simulation, which is unaborted.

Since the unaborted simulation of this input (which uses the H that is 
aborting) will Halt, H can never be correct in determining that it doesn't

Sorry, the fact that you keep on insisting on your lies, and confusing 
the two seperate simulations being talked about, just shows your stupidity.