XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/1/2025 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 30.11.2025 klo 18.52:   
   >> On 11/30/2025 10:15 AM, HAL 9000 wrote:   
   >>> H must and always must halt for any input otherwise it isn't a halt   
   >>> decider.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   >>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   >>      would never stop running unless aborted then   
   >>   
   >>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   >>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> *HHH/DD has been fully operational code since above date*   
   >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>   
   >> typedef int (*ptr)();   
   >> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >>   
   >> int DD()   
   >> {   
   >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>    return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> int main()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DD);   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> HHH is a simulating termination analyzer that   
   >> includes DD in its domain.   
   >>   
   >> HHH does correctly report that DD simulated   
   >> by HHH (according to the semantics of the C   
   >> programming language) does not halt.   
   >>   
   >> Halt is defined as DD reaching its own simulated   
   >> "return" statement while DD is being simulated   
   >> by HHH.   
   >>   
   >> When the halting problem requires HHH to   
   >> report on the behavior of DD directly executed   
   >> from main, this is a category error because it   
   >> requires HHH to report on something besides   
   >> the behavior that the input to HHH(DD) maps to.   
   >   
   > As long as no proof is shown "provably correct" is no better than   
   > "unproven and possible incorrect". But that does not matter as long   
   > as it is not specified what Olcott is right about.   
   >   
      
   A prove is any sequence of steps that shows   
   that its conclusion is necessarily true. Its   
   a kind of semantic tautology.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)