From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

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
--
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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

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

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

On 12/7/2025 12:07 PM, HAL 9000 wrote:

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

I have sound deductive inference on the basis of
accepted definitions that correctly refutes that
requirement. This is the definition that the
halting problem itself violates.

Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.

All the details are exaplained here.

Halting Problem Proof Counter-Example is
Isomorphic to the Liar Paradox
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCHPP-3.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2