XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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_Probl   
   m_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox   
      
   --   
   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)