XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 1:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
   > On 24/11/2025 22:45, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-24, Mike Terry   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>> For HHH/HHH1 the issue is different - they are clearly different   
   >>> algorithms since they give   
   >>> different results, but it's not pointer comparison that is the   
   >>> problem - it's the use of mutable   
   >>> global data:  HHH and HHH1 each use /their own/ global variable [viz   
   >>> their global trace tables]   
   >>> within their algorithms.   
   >>   
   >> Yes; this is an issue that I'm glossing over. HHH and HHH1 are not pure   
   >> functions since they react to this mutating state.   
   >>   
   >> Multiplie instances of HHH share an execution trace buffer, allocated   
   >> by the first call to HHH.   
   >>   
   >> Multiple instances of HHH1 also share an execution trace buffer distinct   
   >> from that one allocated by the first call to HHH1.   
   >>   
   >> Simulations conducted by any level of HHH only feed HHH's buffer,   
   >> and simulations conducted by any level of HHH1 only feed HHH1's buffer.a   
   >   
   > Exactly.  That explains why HHH and HHH1 are not proper clones of each   
   > other [whatever PO claims], and hence why they produce different results.   
   >   
      
   So you are really trying to get away with pretending   
   to be too stupid that you have no idea that recursive   
   simulation defines behavior that cannot terminate normally?   
      
   https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   Simulating termination analyzer HHH and input DD   
   have been a fully operational software system for   
   more than three years.   
      
   typedef int (*ptr)();   
   int HHH(ptr P);   
   int HHH1(ptr P);   
      
   int DD()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      HHH(DD);   
      HHH1(DD);   
   }   
      
   HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   that never stops running until aborted   
      
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that   
   returns to DD that returns to HHH1.   
   (when HHH(DD) sees the repeating pattern)   
      
      
      
   So HHH is still a Turing computable function?   
      
   Yes.   
      
   HHH with static data is still a Turing computable function.   
      
   **Reasoning:**   
      
   Turing machines fundamentally perform:   
   - Read from memory (tape)   
   - Write to memory (tape)   
   - Conditional logic based on memory contents   
      
   HHH using static data performs:   
   - Read from static memory   
   - Write to static memory   
   - Conditional logic based on static memory contents   
      
   These are the same basic operations.   
      
   **Key Point:**   
   Turing machines operate on infinite memory tape where the head reads   
   symbols and writes symbols .   
      
   Static variables are simply named memory locations that persist across   
   function calls.   
      
   Using static variables does not introduce any operation beyond what   
   Turing machines can perform.   
      
   **Conclusion:**   
   HHH is Turing computable, just not a pure function.   
      
   Turing computability ≠ purity requirement.   
      
   https://claude.ai/share/214ba469-3f43-4407-b680-527ec9f7a05b   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)