XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com
On 2025-11-28, olcott wrote:
> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running
> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input
> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior.
No, it doesn't because the non-halting version behavior requires a
non-aborting version HHH, whch is what HHH is avoiding being.
In your program, you had to put in a cheat flag called Root
which makes the first invocation of HHH behave like an aborting
version and subsequent invocations behave like non-aborting.
That splits the behavior of DD into two variants, as you say.
If you dynamically alter HHH from aborting to non-aborting,
of course DD is dynamically altered from terminating to non-terminating.
Unfortunately, it is not valid; it amounts of equvocation over symbols.
You continue to use 'HHH' as if that symbol refers to a single function
with a single ebehavior, and likewise 'DD'.
Your HHH.aborting(DD.original) is returning 0 to indicate
that DD.altered (which is simulated by HHH.nonaborting, is
non-terminating.
This is correct for DD.altered, but is the wrong answer for DD.original.
HHH.aborting(DD.original) is tasked with answering DD.original,
for which the correct answer is 1.
> The caller of a function is never an argument to
> this same function.
That is just demented nonsense.
> The DD executed in main that
> calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that
> HHH simulates.
It can be the same and must be the same.
If it is not the same in your program, you're not disproving anything.
--
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)
|
