Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!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,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) INcorrectly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED
 FACT
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:30:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e218c8cc2c513be2c26a708aba7808fa20b75456@i2pn2.org>
References: <102es19$2ohps$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 22:59:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="255356"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <102es19$2ohps$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

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.