1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: DD halts.

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 18:58:15 2025
    On 25/08/2025 18:07, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 11:50 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 17:15, dbush wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    It does not change the sequence of instructions
    of replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator
    and subsequently running HHH(DD)
    Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

    But that is how PO operates.

    There is /no/ logic underlying what he says.

    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*

    You even changed the subject line to "All rebuttals to this have
    been proven to be counter-factual", which is just wishful thinking.

    DD halts.

    Proof:

    $ 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)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 19:30:32 2025
    On 25/08/2025 19:05, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 12:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 18:07, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 11:50 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 17:15, dbush wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    It does not change the sequence of instructions
    of replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional
    simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD)
    Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

    But that is how PO operates.

    There is /no/ logic underlying what he says.

    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*

    You even changed the subject line to "All rebuttals to this
    have been proven to be counter-factual", which is just wishful
    thinking.

    DD halts.

    Proof:

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

    #define HHH(x) 0


    Despicably dishonest.

    Why? What did you want it to return?

    --
    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)