XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/22/24 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > void DDD()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   >    return;   
   > }   
   >   
   > int main()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   > }   
   >   
   > Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:   
   > (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.   
   > (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.   
   >   
   > We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design   
   > requirement that HHH must itself halt.   
   >   
   > We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the   
   > infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Remember, every HHH crreates a DIFFERENT "PROGRAM" DDD to decide on, and   
   thus you don't have a case you can apply the property of the excluded   
   middle.   
      
   In case (a) HHH(DDD) aborts and returns, so it returns to DDD and DDD   
   Halts, so if HHH returned 0, it was wrong.   
      
   In case (b) HHH(DDD) never aborts, and as you admit, fails to be a decider.   
      
   We can show that for (a), that HHH was wrong by giving that same DDD   
   (which still calls that HHH) to another emulator (like the (b) case) put   
   in an unused location of memory, and it WILL emulate that input to the   
   final state, thus proving you wrong.   
      
   This is what you HHH1 shows,   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)