• H(D,D)==0 is correct is proven in more detail

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 17 20:10:52 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    01 int D(int (*x)())
    02 {
    03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
    04 if (Halt_Status)
    05 HERE: goto HERE;
    06 return Halt_Status;
    07 }
    08
    09 void main()
    10 {
    11 H(D,D);
    12 }

    Here is the sequence when H never aborts it simulation:
    main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
    keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that simulates
    D(D) at line 03 ...

    When it is understood that halting requires reaching a final state and
    stopping for any other reason does not count as halting then

    The fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    final state at line 6 conclusively proves that this simulated D does not
    halt.

    *When H returns 0 it is only affirming this verified fact*

    The notion of a UTM conclusively proves that D correctly simulated by H
    does derive the behavior that a simulating halt decider must measure.

    Because all deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to their
    own accept or reject state anyone and anything that says that H must
    report on the behavior of non-inputs contradicts the definition of a
    decider.

    --
    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)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Mar 17 21:54:48 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 3/17/23 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
    01 int D(int (*x)())
    02 {
    03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
    04   if (Halt_Status)
    05     HERE: goto HERE;
    06   return Halt_Status;
    07 }
    08
    09 void main()
    10 {
    11   H(D,D);
    12 }

    Here is the sequence when H never aborts it simulation:
      main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
      keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 03 ...

    Which only happen if H will NEVER abort it simulation.


    When it is understood that halting requires reaching a final state and stopping for any other reason does not count as halting then

    Right, so the question is will main calling D(D) see D return.

    THAT is the machine presented to the input of H.

    And THAT return, as you have admitted.


    The fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    final state at line 6 conclusively proves that this simulated D does not halt.

    No, since this isn't the H that correct simulates its input, it isn't
    reelvent.


    *When H returns 0 it is only affirming this verified fact*

    No, it afferms that the condition assumed at the begining was a FALSEHOOD.


    The notion of a UTM conclusively proves that D correctly simulated by H
    does derive the behavior that a simulating halt decider must measure.

    Nope, because H isn't a UTM.


    Because all deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to their
    own accept or reject state anyone and anything that says that H must
    report on the behavior of non-inputs contradicts the definition of a
    decider.


    Right, and since the input to H was the description of the machine D(D),
    and you have admitted that this halts, the correct answer is Halting.

    Your the one that says you H looks at something that isn't its input, in
    that it presumes that the H called by D isn't the actual H that exists
    in this prograam.

    Thus you are admitting you H isn't a decider.

    You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.

    This is just poisoning your ideas of "Correct Reasoning" which are
    looking more like "Unsound Reasoning".

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