Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math Subject: Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:24:07 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 36 Message-ID: <20251127101931.514@kylheku.com> References: <10ej1i4$1dbgr$1@dont-email.me> <10ek98e$1n60u$1@dont-email.me> <10ekqcd$1ru07$2@dont-email.me> <10emtjr$2ed11$1@dont-email.me> <10enh08$2jfd2$1@dont-email.me> <10epq18$36mc7$1@dont-email.me> <10eq2pd$395k7$1@dont-email.me> <10esc3k$3t5v3$1@dont-email.me> <10estv2$2ds1$1@dont-email.me> <10eutss$jvdj$1@dont-email.me> <10evc8d$o1se$2@dont-email.me> <10f1bri$193n5$1@dont-email.me> <10f201m$1ekh0$1@dont-email.me> <10f4604$21bpf$2@dont-email.me> <10f4uof$28hb9$1@dont-email.me> <10f6sb3$2o84l$1@dont-email.me> <10f7g5q$2tkbn$1@dont-email.me> <10f9js7$3e65b$1@dont-email.me> <10fa8q3$3jp5k$1@dont-email.me> <10fc4tf$21qu$1@dont-email.me> <10fdp8u$gub4$2@dont-email.me> <10fen6r$ngrk$1@dont-email.me> <10ff84e$s7dk$4@dont-email.me> <10g6j5r$9aql$1@dont-email.me> <10g75m9$gf3b$3@dont-email.me> <10g8vr5$16p4g$1@dont-email.me> <10g9qa3$1h4d5$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d60d5bd91ac2f49b1c6b2bb63037694"; logging-data="1731299"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JILLXp3pIulHkP4P4p3VccR8uvAR9hHY=" User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9vKxapNLCY0ZGgbzpEi7B+IVq20= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:136707 sci.logic:342517 comp.ai.philosophy:32494 sci.math:641323 On 2025-11-27, olcott wrote: > The DD that halts is not the same DD that is > an input to HHH(DD). The input to HHH(DD) > specifies non-halting behavior that HHH > recognizes and terminates. That is completely retarded, insane, and easily proven wrong by taking the very simulation that HHH(DD) incompletely conducted and showing that it proceeds toward termination (HHH wrongly decided 0). You have no valid counterargument, only angry sputtering. The Halting Theorem shows you are wrong. Correctly implemented test cases (using pure functions) in your onw apparatus show that you are wrong. The only way that the DD that is the input to HHH can be different is if HHH alters its behavior with static state to become a different function. And that is exactly what you coded in your idiotic Halt7. The HHH which is called first and sees execution_trace == 0x90909090 behaves differently from the one which sees a different value. Once HHH starts behaving differently, that changes DD to a different test case because DD is built out of HHH. Your picture should be freatured next to "idiot" and "imbecile" entries to in any illustrated dictionary. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca