XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-27, olcott  wrote:   
   > The DD that halts is not the same DD that is   
   > an input to HHH(DD). The input to HHH(DD)   
   > specifies non-halting behavior that HHH   
   > recognizes and terminates.   
      
   That is completely retarded, insane, and easily proven wrong by taking   
   the very simulation that HHH(DD) incompletely conducted and showing that   
   it proceeds toward termination (HHH wrongly decided 0).   
      
   You have no valid counterargument, only angry sputtering.   
      
   The Halting Theorem shows you are wrong.   
      
   Correctly implemented test cases (using pure functions) in your   
   onw apparatus show that you are wrong.   
      
   The only way that the DD that is the input to HHH can be different is if   
   HHH alters its behavior with static state to become a different   
   function.   
      
   And that is exactly what you coded in your idiotic Halt7.   
      
   The HHH which is called first and sees execution_trace == 0x90909090   
   behaves differently from the one which sees a different value.   
      
   Once HHH starts behaving differently, that changes DD to a different   
   test case because DD is built out of HHH.   
      
   Your picture should be freatured next to "idiot" and "imbecile" entries   
   to in any illustrated dictionary.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)