XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/23/2025 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/23/2025 6:45 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-23, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 6:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/22/2025 3:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/22/2025 2:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-22, André G  Isaak  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single   
   >>>>>>>>>> behavior,   
   >>>>>>>>>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp   
   >>>>>>>>> that the   
   >>>>>>>>> "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   >>>>>>>>> description of HHH.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Furthermore, he doesn't get that it doesn't literally have to be   
   >>>>>>>> HHH,   
   >>>>>>>> but the same algorithm: a workalike.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The HHH analyzing DD's halting could be in C, while the HHH   
   >>>>>>>> called by DD could be in Python.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation   
   >>>>>>> and you try to get away with lying about it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'm saying that's not a requirement in the halting problem.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> DD does not have to use that implementation of HHH; it can have   
   >>>>>> its own clean-room implementation and it can be in any language.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But nonetheless, yes, there will still be a nested simulation tower.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I made sure to read what you said all the way through   
   >>>>> this time. DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly   
   >>>>> reach its own final halt state no matter what HHH does.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The /simulation/ of DD by HHH will not /reproduce/ the halt   
   >>>> state of DD, which DD undeniably /has/.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The finite string as an actual input to HHH(DD)   
   >>> *does not have the halting property*   
   >>   
   >> It obviously does.   
   > The show all the steps of DD simulated by HHH   
   > according to the semantics of the C programming   
   > language where DD reaches its own final halt   
   > state by pure simulation with no inference by   
   > anything.   
   >   
   > This is exactly what I mean:   
   >   
   > int DD()   
   > {   
   >    int Halt_Status = UTM(DD);   
   >    if (Halt_Status)   
   >      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >    return Halt_Status;   
   > }   
   >   
   > int main()   
   > {   
   >    UTM(DD);   
   > }   
   >   
   >   
      
   That's not DD.  That's DD' which is irrelevant.   
      
   If you claim HHH(DD) must decide the above code DD', which is not the   
   code it was given, then HHH(DD) is deciding on a non-input.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)