XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: hal@discovery.nasa   
      
   On Sat, 06 Dec 2025 07:49:55 -0600, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 12/6/2025 7:17 AM, HAL 9000 wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2025 19:38:09 -0600, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Not one person can post a single date/time stamp or Google groups link   
   >>> to show otherwise.   
   >>>   
   >>> The strongest of these fake rebuttals was: "that is not how we   
   >>> memorized it".   
   >>   
   >> If H reports non-halting then D halts ergo H is not a halt decider.   
   >>   
   >> /HAL   
   >   
   > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c HHH on line 1081   
   > DD on line 1355   
   >   
   > 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);   
   > }   
   >   
   > DD simulated by HHH (according to the semantics of the C programming   
   > language) cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement   
   > final halt state while being simulated by HHH.   
   >   
   > This is the correct measure of the behavior that the input to HHH(DD)   
   > actually specifies.   
   >   
   > I show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the halting problem   
   > itself is flatly incorrect to require a halt decider to report on the   
   > behavior of DD executed from main when this is not the behavior that the   
   > input to HHH(DD) actually specifies.   
   >   
   > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/   
   398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter-   
   Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox   
      
   If HHH reports non-halting then DD halts ergo HHH is not a halt decider.   
      
   /HAL   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)