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
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting ---
 VERIFIED FACT +++
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:38:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f6cc8780e4692a53ba7bfbf5f1ad65e0d0b0ac6e@i2pn2.org>
References: <102erpt$2ohps$5@dont-email.me> <102gvs0$3d4cf$1@dont-email.me>
 <102hhhn$3gqbm$5@dont-email.me> <102jeak$3avu$1@dont-email.me>
 <102ju18$793t$1@dont-email.me> <102lvvr$pur7$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mj1v$uef9$1@dont-email.me> <102os41$1irbu$1@dont-email.me>
 <102prmp$1r1h4$2@dont-email.me>
 <08ab24ddbb4dd0f733da4431edf4baa1e078e1ce@i2pn2.org>
 <102s0jv$2fbfl$1@dont-email.me>
 <502d82b8112e9ad975fc7b537d6694af24139b55@i2pn2.org>
 <102ukor$369b2$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 01:45:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1097894"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <102ukor$369b2$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/18/25 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2025 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/17/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2025 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/2025 5:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-15 13:49:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 14.jun.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 13.jun.2025 om 17:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how would DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails where other world-class simulators have no 
>>>>>>>>>> problem to simulate the program specified in the input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you still don't understand what recursive simulation is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems I understand it better than you do. You seem to think 
>>>>>>>> that every recursion is a infinite recursion. As soon as you see 
>>>>>>>> a recursion, you think it has been proven that it is an infinite 
>>>>>>>> recursion, even if the code specifies an abort and halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that the input to HHH(DDD) and
>>>>>>> the input to HHH(DD) meets the above self-evidently true criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they don't meet the second cireterion. HHH does not correctly
>>>>>> determine that its input would never stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>> Perhaps you may deceive with someting like equivocation someone to
>>>>>> believe it does but in reality it does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details
>>>>> of how this is not correct:
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that isn't the definition of non-halting, and thus 
>>>> irrelevent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Counter-factual.
>>> Halting is defined as reaching a final halt state.
>>
>> Right, but its complement is *NEVER* reaching a final state, no matter 
>> how far you continue looking at the behavior (since machines don't 
>> stop until the reach a halting state).
>>
>> Your PARTIAL simulation just do not indicate non-halting, just not- 
>> yet- halted.
>>
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>> {
>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
>>> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
>>> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
>>> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> But since HHH *DOES* abort 
> That is not given.
> 

Sure it is, at least in the case you are talking about.

HHH has been defined in Halt7.c

HHH has also been defined to give the "right" answer of non-halting, 
which you claim to be right even when it is proven to be wrong, because 
you logic lies.

The problem is HHH can't be more that one thing, even if you want it to 
be, as that is just your lie.


I guess you think lying is just a valid part of logic.

Your problem is your logic is just built on lies of equivocation.