XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.logic

void E(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
return;
}

int main()
{
HH(E,E);
}

HH only needs to simulate E until HH correctly detects that E has a
repeating state such that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
reach its own final state and terminate normally in any finite number of
steps.

Because it is an easily verified fact that
E correctly simulated by HH
cannot possibly halt (reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally)

HH is necessarily correct to abort its simulation of E and reject
E correctly simulated by HH

as non-halting as soon as it detects the repeating state in
E correctly simulated by HH

The repeating state that we and HH can both see is that
E correctly simulated by HH
would continue to call HH(E,E) in recursive simulation

Making it impossible for
E correctly simulated by H
to reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally (AKA halt).

straw man
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

What deceptive people are doing when they change the subject away from
E correctly simulated by H to form a rebuttal.

Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem



--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.logic

On 2/13/23 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:

void E(int (*x)())
{
  HH(x, x);
  return;
}

int main()
{
  HH(E,E);
}

HH only needs to simulate E until HH correctly detects that E has a
repeating state such that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
reach its own final state and terminate normally in any finite number of steps.

Because it is an easily verified fact that
E correctly simulated by HH
cannot possibly halt (reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally)

HH is necessarily correct to abort its simulation of E and reject
E correctly simulated by HH

as non-halting as soon as it detects the repeating state in
E correctly simulated by HH

The repeating state that we and HH can both see is that
E correctly simulated by HH
would continue to call HH(E,E) in recursive simulation

Making it impossible for
E correctly simulated by H
to reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally (AKA halt).

straw man
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

What deceptive people are doing when they change the subject away from
E correctly simulated by H to form a rebuttal.

Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

Nope.

I replied to you ranting, you have ignored my statements because you
have NO answer to it, so you are admitting you are a failure and are
using flawed logic.

YOU ARE ADMITTING FAILURE BY NOT RESPONDING TO THE REBUTAL.

You are just proving that you are a ignorant pathological lying idiot.

Your arguement is base on simple lies that are based on assuming the
impossible happens.

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