On 3/17/23 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/17/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2023 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2023 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that directly
>>>>>>>> executed D(D) would remain stuck in recursive simulation (run
>>>>>>>> forever) unless H aborts its simulation of D this directly
>>>>>>>> applies to the halting theorem because H correctly determines:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>     whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     For any program H that might determine whether programs halt,
>>>>>>>>     a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>     own source and its input to H and then specifically do the
>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>     of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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: proving (a)
>>>>>>>>    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 D does not
>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H returns 0 it is only affirming this verified fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is understood that all deciders compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> inputs to a final accept or reject state then it is understood
>>>>>>>> that H
>>>>>>>> must only evaluate the behavior of its input and the behavior of
>>>>>>>> non-
>>>>>>>> inputs is not allowed to be considered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient software engineering knowledge knows that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by any element of the infinite set of every
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People with attention deficit disorder have to be told the same thing
>>>>>> hundreds many hundreds of times before they first notice that they
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been told this thing at least once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>
>>>>> The above words are a verified fact, changing these words to form a
>>>>> rebuttal on the basis of these changed words is known as the strawman
>>>>> deception.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 to its caller it is merely affirming the above
>>>> verified fact, therefore H is necessarily correct and impossibly
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>> no matter what H does because halting requires reaching a final state
>> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>>
>
> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
>
> because halting requires reaching a final state
> and D simulated by H never reaches its final state
>
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
>
> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>
>
>

Which just proves your STUPIDITY, since it doesn't matter what an
aborted simulation of D does, what matters is what D itself does as a
machine. Remember, the DEFINION of Halting which you like to quote and
then ignore, is that the MACHINE reaches a final state, and D does.

And D(D) Halts if H(D,D) returns 0, thus that answer is incorrect BY
DEFINITION.

Yes, perhaps your H is a correct POOP decider, as it seems that D
doesn't POOP since H can never simulate it to a final state, but Halt it
does.

And you POOP is like an elephant's, since it is full of the straw from
your strawman from your trying to replace the definiion of Halting with
a simulation by H.