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: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 06:56:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <791afc99b564ea02fdb75b889e18f0d20f45d3df@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$9@dont-email.me> <1009lm9$b15q$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ceum$uvq0$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwl1s2p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100dscu$18b5s$1@dont-email.me> <87v7pxzbp4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100du9m$18m8u$1@dont-email.me> <100dvuj$18b5q$2@dont-email.me>
 <100e17m$194d7$1@dont-email.me> <100e3qo$1d7a1$1@dont-email.me>
 <100e5g1$1do0r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 11:09:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1014424"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100e5g1$1do0r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3205
Lines: 42

On 5/18/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2025 9:08 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 19/05/2025 02:24, olcott wrote:
>>> It was stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD.
>>
>> That's all right then.
>>
>> It's stipulated that you are correct.
>>
> 
> Unless is it known that one C function
> cannot possibly simulate another the
> stipulation must be accepted by anyone
> wanting an honest dialogue.
> 

How can one simulate code that isn't given?

The issue is that your representation for your DDD doesn't include the 
code for the HHH that it uses, and in fact, you don't even define what 
code that is, just where to find it, and allow that to change.

Thus, your DDD doesn't HAVE defined behavior, as what it will actually 
end up doing is based on external conditions.

That puts it outside the realm of computation theory, which deals with 
things that are defined, which is why Halt Deciders are defined to have 
as their input "Programs" and Programs are defined to include all their 
code.

Thus, your admittion that your DDD isn't actually a progrmm just puts 
all your logic into a category error.

The other problem with your stipulation, is that you have also 
stipulated that HHH is as defined in your published Halt7.c file, and 
since that HHH aborts its simulation, it is a fact that it doesn't 
correctly simulate this input.

Having Contradictory Stipulations just makes an argument unsound and its 
results invalid. Continuing such an argument after the error has been 
pointed out and not fixing it, just makes the person a pathological 
liar, for continuing to claim something as true, when they should know 
that it isn't.