Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:41:11 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <191218123f5c1b2337c116736b05c8ee64115128@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 23:41:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1790321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vpl0h8$23vks$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2992
Lines: 47

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?

Thje question is about DD as a Turing Machine (eqquivalent), if the main 
scafolding is needed for your equivalence system, it isn't really part 
of the original problem.

When converting the requirments from Turing Machines to your C Language 
version, the question being ask of the decider, is would the full 
program defined by the input (and it needs to be a full program) return 
to main when main directly calls it or not?

The fact that you need to alter-is (and thus LIE) about the problem to 
be about HHH emulating the input, when the problem NEVER stated 
emulation, and especially not by a partial (and thus incorrrect) 
emulation, so you are just showing that you are just a liar.