On 25/08/2025 18:07, olcott wrote:
On 8/25/2025 11:50 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 25/08/2025 17:15, dbush wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
It does not change the sequence of instructions
of replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator
and subsequently running HHH(DD)
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
But that is how PO operates.
There is /no/ logic underlying what he says.
*That is counter-factual*
*That is counter-factual*
*That is counter-factual*
*That is counter-factual*
*That is counter-factual*
You even changed the subject line to "All rebuttals to this have
been proven to be counter-factual", which is just wishful thinking.
DD halts.
Proof:
$ cat dd.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define HHH(x) 0
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
int hhh = HHH(DD);
int dd = DD();
printf("Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD
halted.\n");
printf("But is that what they claim?\n\n");
printf("HHH(DD) yields %d (%s).\n", hhh, hhh ? "halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
printf("DD yields %d (%s).\n", dd, dd ? "halted" : "incorrect
claim of non-halting");
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o dd dd.c
$ ./dd
Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD halted.
But is that what they claim?
HHH(DD) yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
DD yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)