On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:30:28 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2025 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:16:51 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote:

The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>>>> DD.

False, main() is calling DD().

/Flibble

More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD
correctly simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD.

Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH.

The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH,

So you expect HHH to have psychic ability?

HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD

Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally
ignore every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by >>>>>>> HHH has different behavior than DD().

And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem
proofs are correct!

/Flibble

Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the
way that Turing machines actually work.

When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability
to see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct.

A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing
Machines.

/Flibble

Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C
functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are
false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions
forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion.

That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to
prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right.

No, it means there are proofs proving the Halting Problem is
undecidable without reference to Turing Machines.

/Flibble

None of the conventional proofs prove halting undecidability no matter
how they do it.

An assertion not based in reality much like all your other baseless
assertions.

/Flibble

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)