XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c

Op 23.aug.2025 om 18:21 schreef olcott:

On 8/23/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:

The actual case is that you are too f-cking
stupid to find any mistake in my work.

I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.

I beg your pardon?

If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?

*Of course* it matters... IF he's right.

Thus providing evidence that Bonita Montero is a mere troll.

He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.

*This is a fact proven true on the basis of its meaning*
When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.

As usual irrelevant claims.
For each of these input it can been proven that the final halt state is specified in the input by using other means, like world-class simulators.
The failure to reach the final halt state does not change that
specification of the input.
It only shows why simulation is not the correct tool.
Not reaching the final halt state is a property of the simulator, not of
the program specified in its input

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