XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: sci.lang, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 2/4/26 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 2/4/2026 2:41 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 2/1/26 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 2/1/2026 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/31/26 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> Source code of fully operational system   
   >>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>> {   
   >>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>> }   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> HHH simulates DD step-by-step according to   
   >>>>> the semantics of the C programming language.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> IT CAN'T, as you have been told, as your above program, without the   
   >>>> C CODE for HHH, has undefined behavior by the semantics of the C   
   >>>> programming language.   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >> HHH as executed by polcott is exhibiting a classifier interface i'm   
   >> calling a *partial recognizer*   
   >>   
   >> (machine) -> {   
   >>    TRUE iff machine HALTS and DECIDABLE,   
   >>    FALSE iff machine LOOPS or UNDECIDABLE,   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> it doesn't do so quite so intelligently, but HHH(DD) needs to return   
   >> FALSE because DD is an UNDECIDABLE input to HHH   
   >>   
   >> polcott does this by detecting the infinite recursion and returning   
   >> FALSE because of that   
   >>   
   >> this approach of returning FALSE upon encountering an infinite   
   >> recursion on self (which i believe all paradoxes will involve) will   
   >> either be accurate or inaccurate in regards to actually halting/not...   
   >> but it doesn't matter because returning FALSE for halting yet   
   >> UNDECIDABLE input is acceptable for a *partial recognizer*   
   >>   
   >> where this wouldn't work is:   
   >>   
   >> int ND()   
   >> {   
   >>      int Halt_Status = HHH(ND);   
   >>      return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> HHH(ND) -> FALSE because HHH(ND) will recognize the infinite recursion   
   >> and return FALSE ... but that's not an acceptable response for a   
   >> *partial recognizer* for ND because ND is not an UNDECIDABLE input,   
   >> and it clearly should HALT   
   >>   
   >> sorry polcott   
   >>   
   >   
   > That is merely a text message that has not been updated.   
   >   
   > See my other post:   
   > When halt provers are allowed to reject bad   
   > inputs the remaining domain is decidable   
   >   
   > A bad input is any input that does not have   
   > *a well-founded justification tree within Proof*   
   > *theoretic semantics*   
   >   
   > For a simulating halt prover as soon as it detects   
   > that its simulated input cannot possibly reach its   
   > own simulated final halt state for any reason   
   > what-so-ever then this input  a bad input.   
   >   
      
   so ur just banning self-referential analysis?   
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)