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 17:20:02 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9d0a00ef6ef09f7b79e6f91983050dc17afcc151@i2pn2.org>
References: <f4f759fcc2f0b701a91e38062c25d16534e470af@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>
 <3431ec3bd2abdc62d693959664e202aa3bc214bd@i2pn2.org>
 <vj252d$38tkl$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 22:20:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1771401"; 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: <vj252d$38tkl$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5148
Lines: 87

On 12/7/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2024 12:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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
>>
> 
> When I say the the work that I accomplished ON MY CRITERIA
> has never been done before IT IS WOEFULLY DISHONEST to
> rebut this by changing the subject to some other criteria.
> 


Then the work you have accopmllished is just a LIE.

Just like the climare and election deniers.

If you say "Halting Problem" and then aren't actually doing the Halting 
Problem, then you are just showing that EVERYTHING you have been doing 
is based on LIES.


Sorry, but YOU are the one guilty of changing the subject, and perhaps 
your lymph node is God pointing out that you are not in control.