Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:44:17 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <vpm671$2dvrs$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vore4m$9ddo$1@dont-email.me> <vpkq6t$22eec$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpl0h8$23vks$4@dont-email.me>
 <191218123f5c1b2337c116736b05c8ee64115128@i2pn2.org>
 <vplssg$28j3a$4@dont-email.me>
 <b08cb1919074c226cfa4b1fa9a12a51a8ca619b5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 05:44:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be1a41fcc27cfa869ea1b51d56f1df7a";
	logging-data="2555772"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7obmxmxUcC0hChGvvFF0B"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Xo4oKZtmzxhl9dgcSu3k+Y1A6w=
In-Reply-To: <b08cb1919074c226cfa4b1fa9a12a51a8ca619b5@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250225-8, 2/25/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/25/25 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/25/25 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
>>>>> proof or pointer to proof below.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
>>>> own "return" instruction.
>>>>
>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since it isn't part of the problem, why is that?
>>>
>>
>> Requiring main() makes it dead obvious when anyone
>> is trying to get away with the strawman deception.
>> You keep trying to get away with changing the subject
>> away from DD emulated by HHH.
>>
> 
> SL, you admit that everything you have said is a lie.
> 
> Where is "main" mentioned in the "Halting Problem"
> 

> Nowhere, so your requirement for main is just your strawman,
> 
> What about the program:
> 
> int main() {
>     HHH(DD);
>     DD();
> }
> 
> That program proves that DD as a program will return.
> 
> If you say that changes the behavior of DD, then you need to show where 
> you are getting your definitions, as that is just a lie.
> 
> Sorry to be so blunt, but you are just proving how stupid you are, and 
> how everything you have done is just a FRAUD.

Your ADD seems to make you non-functional.
You can't seem to keep track of a single point
from one reply to the next.

I am talking about simulating termination analyzer HHH
and the finite string pointer to the x86 machine code of DD.
-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer