On 20/08/2025 15:07, olcott wrote:

<snip>

It is a matter of self evident truth
(stronger than verified fact) that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state.

I can fix that, by correctly simulating HHH.

typedef int (*ptr)();

#define HHH(x) 0

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

This self evident truth

...is self-evidently wrong (see above).

proves that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.

As correctly simulated by my macro.

And yet DD halts.

Nearly everyone here has been telling lies
about this for three years, the ones that
were not lying were mistaken.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that you got it wrong.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 15:34, olcott wrote:

I will quit even glancing at your posts.

That's a very gracious offer. It would indeed be most helpful, if
you would be so kind.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 16:21, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 9:37 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 15:34, olcott wrote:

I will quit even glancing at your posts.

That's a very gracious offer. It would indeed be most helpful,
if you would be so kind.

I don't know why you insist on lying about
these things. Do you also lie about climate change?

Mu. Your question is based on a false premise, and has no
meaningful answer.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 17:02, olcott wrote:

None of your rebuttals of my work have
any basis in correct reasoning.

My rebuttals of what you choose to call your "work" have their
general basis in the classic proof of The Halting Problem, but my
specific rebuttals have to do with your flawed simulation of the
function you call DD. Your simulator, HHH, completely fails to
capture DD's character, and doesn't even attempt to simulate more
than one line. You claim that one line is enough to give you a
correct simulation.

So be it. By correctly simulating one line of HHH (the call to
it), I can demonstrate DD's character easily. Spoiler: it halts.

$ cat dd.c
#include <stdio.h>

#define HHH(x) 0

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
int hhh = HHH(DD);
int dd = DD();

printf("Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD
halted.\n");

printf("But is that what they claim?\n\n");
printf("HHH(DD) yields %d (%s).\n", hhh, hhh ? "halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
printf("DD yields %d (%s).\n", dd, dd ? "halted" : "incorrect
claim of non-halting");

return 0;
}
$ gcc -o dd dd.c
$ ./dd
Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD halted.
But is that what they claim?

HHH(DD) yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
DD yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).


--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

#define HHH(x) 0

Moronically counter-factual.

Which bit?

It looks exactly right to me. It yields 0, which is the only
important bit.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 18:20, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

#define HHH(x) 0

Moronically counter-factual.

Which bit?

It looks exactly right to me. It yields 0, which is the only
important bit.

It skips the required inference steps,

And yours skips the Turing tail in DD. If you're allowed to skip
stuff, so are other people.

Besides which, we may take as read that you've done all that
inference stuff in a previous run - use one of your magic statics
- and written it down if it really matters (which I doubt,
because it ends up with the wrong answer).

The key part of HHH is that it yields 0 (which I capture), just
as the key part of DD is the if/forever/return logic, which you
singularly fail to capture.

thus is not
any sort of reasoning at all.

And your skipping DD's tail is thus not any sort of simulation at
all.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 18:33, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:20, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

#define HHH(x) 0

Moronically counter-factual.

Which bit?

It looks exactly right to me. It yields 0, which is the only
important bit.

It skips the required inference steps,

And yours skips the Turing tail in DD. If you're allowed to
skip stuff, so are other people.

Besides which, we may take as read that you've done all that
inference stuff in a previous run - use one of your magic
statics - and written it down if it really matters (which I
doubt, because it ends up with the wrong answer).

The key part of HHH is that it yields 0 (which I capture), just
as the key part of DD is the if/forever/return logic, which you
singularly fail to capture.

thus is not
any sort of reasoning at all.

And your skipping DD's tail is thus not any sort of simulation
at all.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
  HERE: goto HERE;
  return;
}

Thus HHH(Infinite_Loop) would reach the "return"
statement final halt state of Infinite_Loop()
according to your lying ways.

Who cares?

Anyone can see at a glance what that will do, so you add no
value. DD is a much more interesting case, which is why you wrote
it and why we're talking about it, or rather you're carefully
avoiding talking about it and plugging in non-DD code instead.
What's the point? You must know by now that you're wrong, so why
keep pretending?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 20/08/2025 18:45, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:33, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:20, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 12:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

#define HHH(x) 0

Moronically counter-factual.

Which bit?

It looks exactly right to me. It yields 0, which is the
only important bit.

It skips the required inference steps,

And yours skips the Turing tail in DD. If you're allowed to
skip stuff, so are other people.

Besides which, we may take as read that you've done all that
inference stuff in a previous run - use one of your magic
statics - and written it down if it really matters (which I
doubt, because it ends up with the wrong answer).

The key part of HHH is that it yields 0 (which I capture),
just as the key part of DD is the if/forever/return logic,
which you singularly fail to capture.

thus is not
any sort of reasoning at all.

And your skipping DD's tail is thus not any sort of
simulation at all.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}

Thus HHH(Infinite_Loop) would reach the "return"
statement final halt state of Infinite_Loop()
according to your lying ways.

Who cares?

That I just proved that you lied about HHH(DD)?

Nonsense. What you just proved is that you are absolutely
hopeless at making your point.

Tell me - can you *really* not see that ignoring 75% of your
input fatally wounds your program's credibility? Do you honestly
believe that code doesn't matter?

If so, why put it in in the first place?

You want DD to loop, right? Great! Just do this.

void DD(void)
{
HHH(DD);for(;;);
}

Now HHH can identify DD as non-terminating, and get it right, and
who gives two hoots about the return value? Just leave it out
completely.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

Op 20.aug.2025 om 16:07 schreef olcott:

On 8/20/2025 2:37 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 8/19/2025 6:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 02:00, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-08-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Thus the correct return value for HHH(DD) is 0.

Wishing for HHH(DD) to have some return value doesn't make it have
that return value.

If HHH(DD) doens't have that value, it's just wrong.

Exercise for the discerning student: come up with a return value for
HHH(DD) that /isn't/ "just wrong".

Flip a coin and say mostly wrong?

It is a matter of self evident truth
(stronger than verified fact) that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state. This self evident truth
proves that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.

No, your are twisting the facts. We all see that HHH fails to reach the
final halt state. But you need to prove that such a failure changes the specification of a halting program.
The inability of a program to do the computation specified in the input,
does not imply that the input does not specify such a computation.

Nearly everyone here has been telling lies
about this for three years, the ones that
were not lying were mistaken.

You keep your eyes closed for all corrections so that you can repeat
your incorrect claims that these corrections do not exist.
Instead of repeated claims, try to make a consistent logical proof.

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