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,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) Does incorrectly reject its input as non-halting ---
 VERIFIED FACT +++ and Oclotts VERIFIED LIES
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:41:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <92780c3f3917b840acc302f927e7f5927dcef29e@i2pn2.org>
References: <102es19$2ohps$6@dont-email.me>
 <e218c8cc2c513be2c26a708aba7808fa20b75456@i2pn2.org>
 <guW2Q.941450$BFJ.9450@fx13.ams4> <102hf1t$3gqbm$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c24a54d6b46cca020e7f1c075b2646b697ead02@i2pn2.org>
 <102hq0c$3j9s4$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d0d5629fc422454a41c602b8da47bff03a512f0@i2pn2.org>
 <102ifi7$3oqt2$1@dont-email.me>
 <a73ea34cd9b17ce12a239796728f2f7f2f64a86e@i2pn2.org>
 <102iro6$3v74t$1@dont-email.me>
 <884af5641eb786efc5c5c157de8a2c0cb813cc8f@i2pn2.org>
 <102k12t$793t$8@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 19:05:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="507190"; 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: <102k12t$793t$8@dont-email.me>

On 6/14/25 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/14/2025 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/13/25 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/25 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/13/25 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/25 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 9:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:30:46 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/25 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE that form of the counter example, DD needs to include 
>>>>>>>>>>> as part of
>>>>>>>>>>> itself, a copy of the code of HHH, and thus make itself a 
>>>>>>>>>>> PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SInce you stipulate that "the input" does not actually 
>>>>>>>>>>> contain that
>>>>>>>>>>> codd, but it only exists in the same memory space, all you 
>>>>>>>>>>> are doing is
>>>>>>>>>>> showing that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First: your decider isn't just a function of its input, and 
>>>>>>>>>>> thus fails
>>>>>>>>>>> to meet the model of a program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second: Since the code of HHH isn't part of the input. you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> "correctly simulate THE INPUT" as your simulation needs to use
>>>>>>>>>>> information that is not part of the input
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Third, your HHH doesn't have a fully defined behavior (as 
>>>>>>>>>>> your argument
>>>>>>>>>>> entails it having a number of different behaviors, each of which
>>>>>>>>>>> afffects the code assumed as part of the input) and thus even 
>>>>>>>>>>> it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> in line with the requirements of the proof program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, in Strachey, the "input" isn't the CPL code of just the 
>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>> D, but a reference to the FULL PROGRAM created by D.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> // rec routine P //   §L :if T[P] go to L //     Return §
>>>>>>>>>>>> // https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ANd note, that passed the full definition of P to T as access 
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> decider to try to decide on, not just the function C as you 
>>>>>>>>>>> claim yours
>>>>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Strachey_P()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>     L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
>>>>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract/7/4/313/354243?
>>>>>>>>>>>> redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note. that if you actually look at what was passed to HHH, it 
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> address in memory, which by itself doesn't actually define 
>>>>>>>>>>> the program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, "the input" must be interpreted to include the code 
>>>>>>>>>>> that PROGRAM
>>>>>>>>>>> uses. To try to define it to be just the code of the reference C
>>>>>>>>>>> funcition, means that HHH can not look anywhere else for 
>>>>>>>>>>> details of the
>>>>>>>>>>> input, and thus can't simulate past the call instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "return" statement final halt state because 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) specifies recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, per you stipulation, the code for HHH is not in the 
>>>>>>>>>>> input, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH can not possible correctly simulate this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, since to even talk about the behavior of this input, it 
>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>> a program, which since it uses a copy of the decider, means 
>>>>>>>>>>> the decider
>>>>>>>>>>> must also be a program, and thus has fixed behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if, as you claim, HHH correctly returns the value 0 as 
>>>>>>>>>>> its answer,
>>>>>>>>>>> it does so for ALL copies of its input, and also by your 
>>>>>>>>>>> argument, we
>>>>>>>>>>> know that HHH *MUST* have stoped its simulation before it got 
>>>>>>>>>>> to the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of the simulation, and thus it is *NOT* a "correct 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation" and thus
>>>>>>>>>>> your claim is just sperious, as it is based on an non-exisdting
>>>>>>>>>>> condition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, since you have shown that when HHH and DD have had 
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> category error fixed, that HHH(DD) returns 0, we can easily 
>>>>>>>>>>> see that the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual correcct simulation of the input (which will match the
>>>>>>>>>>> requirement of the behavior of the program it represents) 
>>>>>>>>>>> will reach its
>>>>>>>>>>> terminal state, as DD calls HHH(DD) which *WILL* after 
>>>>>>>>>>> fintite time
>>>>>>>>>>> return 0, and thus DD will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the above code is fully operational in this file
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that when we do fix the decider and input by the 
>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>> specified there, that it is a fact that HHH(DD) will return 
>>>>>>>>>>> 0, and that
>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of DD() will halt, and thus HHH is 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, and you
>>>>>>>>>>> are just shown to be a stupid and ignorant liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As per previous conversations, you have demonstracted that 
>>>>>>>>>>> you accept
>>>>>>>>>>> these conclusions, as you have been unable to provide any 
>>>>>>>>>>> counter to
>>>>>>>>>>> them, except the improper one of just repeating your error.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thi shows that either you know that you are just 
>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally lying, or
>>>>>>>>>>> are just so mentally challanged that you just don't 
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words you use, or how logic works, or even 
>>>>>>>>>>> that it means
>>>>>>>>>>> for something to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This will be your eternal reputation, a man who was likely so 
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid
>>>>>>>>>>> that he became a big pathological liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This response from **Richard Damon** to **Olcott** is a 
>>>>>>>>>> characteristically
>>>>>>>>>> intense rebuttal that mixes technical critique with personal 
>>>>>>>>>> attacks.
>>>>>>>>>> Below is an **objective analysis** of the argument, separating 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> **logical content** from the **rhetorical posture**.
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========