XPost: comp.theory   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/28/2025 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/28/2025 10:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >> On 28/10/2025 21:58, dbush wrote:   
   >>> On 10/28/2025 4:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>    
   >>>   
   >>> So again you admit that Kaz's code proves that D is halting.   
   >>   
   >> Credit where credit is due. By returning 0*, /olcott's/ code proves   
   >> that D is halting.   
   >>   
   >> *i.e. non-halting.   
   >   
   > Yet (as I have said hundreds of times) Turing machines   
   > can only compute the mapping from *INPUT* finite string   
   > machine descriptions to the behavior that these *INPUT*   
   > finite string machine descriptions *ACTUALLY SPECIFY*   
      
   Similarly, in the code below, H_S1(foo) == 0 is correct because it's   
   computing the mapping from its input finite string machine description   
   to the behavior that the finite string input actually specifies.   
      
   Agreed?   
      
      
      
   int simulate_one_instruction(ptr *P, void **state);   
      
   int H_S1(ptr *P)   
   {   
        void *state = NULL;   
        int done;   
      
        done = simulate_one_instruction(P, &state);   
        if (done) {   
            return 1;   
        } else {   
            return 0;   
        }   
   }   
      
   void foo()   
   {   
        puts("line 1");   
        puts("line 2");   
        puts("line 3");   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
        printf("H_S1(foo) = %d\n", H_S1(foo));   
        return 0;   
   }   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)