XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/3/2025 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/3/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/3/2025 9:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:25:35 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>> >>   
   >>>> Means that the simulated final halt state cannot possibly be reached.   
   >>>> This *is* non-halting behavior.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it isn't non-halting behaviour, it is Olcott Partial Halt Decider   
   >>> (OPHD) behaviour which is nothing to do with the halting problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> /Flibble   
   >>   
   >> When a partial halt decider correctly decides the impossible   
   >> input the proof that claims this input was impossible is proved   
   >> wrong.   
   >   
   > Except your doesn't as HHH(DDD) says that DDD doesn't halt, when it does.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When the halting problem proof claims that it has   
   >> proven that no universal halt decider HHH can possibly   
   >> exist on the basis that no algorithm exists that   
   >> returns a Boolean value that corresponds to the   
   >> behavior of this input DD:   
   >>   
   >> int DD()   
   >> {   
   >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>    return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> _DD()   
   >> [00002162] 55             push ebp   
   >> [00002163] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   >> [00002165] 51             push ecx   
   >> [00002166] 6862210000     push 00002162 // push DD   
   >> [0000216b] e862f4ffff     call 000015d2 // call HHH   
   >> [00002170] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   >> [00002173] 8945fc         mov [ebp-04],eax   
   >> [00002176] 837dfc00       cmp dword [ebp-04],+00   
   >> [0000217a] 7402           jz 0000217e   
   >> [0000217c] ebfe           jmp 0000217c   
   >> [0000217e] 8b45fc         mov eax,[ebp-04]   
   >> [00002181] 8be5           mov esp,ebp   
   >> [00002183] 5d             pop ebp   
   >> [00002184] c3             ret   
   >> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184]   
   >>   
   >> This halting problem proof is proved wrong because   
   >> the recursive structure of DD correctly emulated   
   >> by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state   
   >> at machine address [00002184] thus HHH(DD)==0 is correct.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But that isn't the criteria that HHH is supposed to use.   
   >   
   > The question is, does the program, that the input represents. halts when   
   > run.   
   >   
      
   The actual textbook short hand was:   
   Does machine M halt in input w?   
      
   It turns out that has merely been short-hand for:   
   Does the input to the halt decider specify non-halting behavior?   
      
   Just like when I say:   
   HHH emulates itself emulating DDD was short-hand for   
   HHH emulates an instance of itself emulating an instance of DDD.   
      
   In both cases the short-hand version is not precisely accurate.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)