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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting ---
 VERIFIED FACT +++
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:05:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d2ff9963bfa95f78e338593eac4d84659687cff1@i2pn2.org>
References: <102erpt$2ohps$5@dont-email.me> <102gvs0$3d4cf$1@dont-email.me>
 <102jv6o$793t$5@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 19:06:02 -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: <102jv6o$793t$5@dont-email.me>

On 6/14/25 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-12 15:30:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> // rec routine P
>>> //   §L :if T[P] go to L
>>> //     Return §
>>> // https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
>>> void Strachey_P()
>>> {
>>>    L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? 
>>> redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>
>> Strachey only informally presents the idea of the proof. Formalism
>> and details needed in a rigorous proof is not shown.
>>
>>> It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH
>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
>>> final halt state.
>>
>> That "cannot possibly" is not a part of any verifiable fact as
>> it is not sufficiently well-defined for a verification. What
>> cannot be stated cearly and unambiguoulsy cannot be a verified
>> fact.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55             push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
> 
> It is a self-evidently true verified fact that DDD
> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own simulated "ret" instruction final halt state in
> 1 to ∞ steps of correct emulation of DDD by HHH.
> 
> Everyone that does not agree has less than a first
> year CS student's understanding of the C programming
> language.
> 

Since your HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, and no other HHH 
can exists since you have changed your stipulation, and not include the 
code of HHH as part of the input (since you just accused me of lying and 
having to have corrected me when I pointed out that you have stipulated 
that the input doesn't contain the code for HHH).

Since the code for the HHH that aborts and returns in included in DDD, 
since that is the HHH that you say exists, and all HHH just look at the 
DDD that calls them, that must be the only one in existance, and thus 
your criteria is just a false statement, as that HHH doesn't correctly 
simulate its input, since it stops short.

Sorry, you are just boxxing yourself in by your changing lies, and 
proving you don't really know what you are talking about.