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

int D(int (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt

Full source-code here: https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip


--
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, sci.logic, comp.software-eng

On 2/15/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:

int D(int (*x)())
{
  int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
  Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
  Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt

Full source-code here: https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip

Nope, H shows that H doesn't correctly determine what a correct
simulation of D would do,

Since D(D) will Halt when H(D,D) returns 0 (as it does), then a correct simulation of D(D) must show that.

Some how you beleive that a "correct simulation" can show something
different than the thing it is simulating.

That just shows you don't understand of the meaning of "Correct".

This can easily be proven with a main that calls both H(D,D) and then D(D)

You have been told this before.

Your ignoring that means either you are a total idiot or a pathological
liar, or both.

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

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

On 2/15/2023 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:

int D(int (*x)())
{
  int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
  Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
  Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt

Full source-code here: https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip

Brain dead morons keep forgetting that halt deciders compute the mapping
from their inputs to an accept or reject state. The reason that they are
brain dead and not regular morons is that when they are reminded of this
error thousands of times they still keep forgetting.

(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
H correctly predicts that its simulated D would never reach its own
"return" statement in any finite number of simulated steps THEN

(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.


--
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, sci.logic, comp.software-eng

On 2/15/23 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/15/2023 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
   Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt
H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would not halt

Full source-code here: https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip

Brain dead morons keep forgetting that halt deciders compute the mapping
from their inputs to an accept or reject state. The reason that they are brain dead and not regular morons is that when they are reminded of this error thousands of times they still keep forgetting.

No, you, being a brain dead idiot, keeps forgeting that a Halt Decider,
BY DEFINITION, must compute the HALTING MAPPING, defined by the
behavior of the machine described by the input and whether it reaches a
final state or not when run.

To quote:

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

So the thing to be decide is WHETHER THE PROGRAM WILL FINISH RUNNING, OR CONTIMUE TO RUN FOREVER.

**THE PROGRAM**

Not the simulation by the decider.

(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
H correctly predicts that its simulated D would never reach its own
"return" statement in any finite number of simulated steps THEN

(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

if it **CORRECTLY** decideds, which means it correctly determines that
teh PROGRAM WHEN RUN WILL CONTINUE TO RUN FOREVER.

You are just proving you don't understand the basic English word.

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