XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 29.jul.2025 om 04:57 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 7/28/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 7/28/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/28/25 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 7/28/2025 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/28/25 8:34 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That you are too stupid to understand that DDD simulated   
   >>>>>>> by HHH does call HHH in recursive emulation even after   
   >>>>>>> I have provided fully operational code of DDD calling   
   >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation *IS NOT A REBUTTAL*   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What you are too stupid to understand is that while the *PROGRAM*   
   >>>>>> HHH, which does the specific actions it is defined to, when it   
   >>>>>> simulates the input that represents the *PROGRAM* DDD, which by   
   >>>>>> definition includes the code of the HHH that it is built on, that   
   >>>>>> will not reach the final state.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> HHH correctly predicts that DDD correctly simulated   
   >>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its simulated "return"   
   >>>>> statement final halt state. This is because DDD does   
   >>>>> call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Can't do that, as HHH doesn't correct simulate its input, since   
   >>>> correct simulation requires being complete.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Never heard of mathematical induction?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You don't have a valid induction. The problem is every version of HHH   
   >> gets a different version of DDD, so you can't build the induction, as   
   >> the n and n+1 steps don't relate.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The only difference in the elements of the infinite   
   > set of HHH/DDD pairs where HHH emulates N instructions   
   > of DDD cannot possibly have any effect on whether this   
   > DDD instance reaches its "return" instruction final   
   > halt state *AND YOU HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT*   
   >   
   >   
   As usual irrelevant claims, that do not make a rebuttal.   
   Other world-class simulators prove that only one more cycle is needed to   
   reach the final halt state for this input. This proves that HHH fails to   
   recognise that there is only a *finite* recursion.   
   That other simulators fail also with other inputs is not relevant for   
   this input, the input with your DDD and your HHH.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)