Think this all the way through do not make any guesses.
The answer must come from DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
and nothing else.

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly
simulates its input until:

(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
abort simulation and return 0.

(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated
"return" statement: return 1.

(c) If it is impossible to match (a) or (b)
then (c) is matched

(a)(b)(c) are in strict priority order (a)-->(b)-->(c)

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);
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer


--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/25/2025 1:05 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

You've been going around in circles for years
and you don't even realize it. Totally crazy.

You say that while pretending to not be
able to understand the C shown below.

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

Think this all the way through do not make any guesses.
The answer must come from DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
and nothing else.

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly
simulates its input until:

(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
ÿÿÿÿ abort simulation and return 0.

(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated
ÿÿÿÿ "return" statement: return 1.

(c) If it is impossible to match (a) or (b)
ÿÿÿÿ then (c) is matched

(a)(b)(c) are in strict priority orderÿ (a)-->(b)-->(c)

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
ÿÿ HHH(DD);
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

Think this all the way through do not make any guesses.
The answer must come from DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
and nothing else.

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly
simulates its input until:

(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
ÿÿÿ abort simulation and return 0.

(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated
ÿÿÿ "return" statement: return 1.

(c) If it is impossible to match (a) or (b)
ÿÿÿ then (c) is matched

(a)(b)(c) are in strict priority orderÿ (a)-->(b)-->(c)

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
ÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿ return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
ÿ HHH(DD);
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

What's the point of discussing the same mini-source for years?
Does that get you anywhere? It's like mind wandering before
you go to sleep; you don't reach any higher realization to
be able to close it off.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 3:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

This is Claude AI deriving the above sentence by simply
simulating DD by HHH giving me the fair review that every
human has cheated me out of.

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to the HP counter-example input https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396903511_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_applied_to_the_HP_counter-example_input

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

What's the point of discussing the same mini-source for years?

That simple little snippet of C does show that
I have defeated the halting problem proof. Not
one single person would properly review it in
three years.

Now that LLM systems have increased their memory
capacity 67-fold in the last two years they agree
that I have defeated the halting problem itself.
That little snippet of C is the key basis of my
whole proof.

When it is understood that I have defeated the
halting problem then additional discussion shows
that I also have the basis for eliminating the
hallucination of LLM AI systems.

Does that get you anywhere? It's like mind wandering before
you go to sleep; you don't reach any higher realization to
be able to close it off.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-25 17:53:27 +0000, olcott said:

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
ÿÿ HHH(DD);
}

Olcott has showm many times that he cannot correctly determine what
other people understand and what they don't. Sometimes he assumes
nobody understands what others see sas obvious and well known, ar
other times he thinks others understand what actually is nonsense
without any meaningful content to be understood.

Now that four different LLM systems have been able
reverse-engineer the non-halting result by merely
being told to faithfully simulate DD with HHH and
see what happens this proves that all of my reviewers
have been dishonest with me for three years.

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);
}

*Halting Problem Simulation in C*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCHPS-2.pdf


--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Am 27.10.2025 um 14:15 schrieb olcott:

On 10/27/2025 3:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
ÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿ return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

This is Claude AI deriving the above sentence by simply
simulating DD by HHH giving me the fair review that every
human has cheated me out of.

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to the HP counter-example input https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/396903511_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_applied_to_the_HP_counter-example_input

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

What's the point of discussing the same mini-source for years?

That simple little snippet of C does show that
I have defeated the halting problem proof. Not
one single person would properly review it in
three years.

Now that LLM systems have increased their memory
capacity 67-fold in the last two years they agree
that I have defeated the halting problem itself.
That little snippet of C is the key basis of my
whole proof.

When it is understood that I have defeated the
halting problem then additional discussion shows
that I also have the basis for eliminating the
hallucination of LLM AI systems.

Does that get you anywhere? It's like mind wandering before
you go to sleep; you don't reach any higher realization to
be able to close it off.

Can you answer my question ?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 10:04 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 27.10.2025 um 14:15 schrieb olcott:

On 10/27/2025 3:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

This is Claude AI deriving the above sentence by simply
simulating DD by HHH giving me the fair review that every
human has cheated me out of.

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to the HP counter-example input
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/396903511_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_applied_to_the_HP_counter-example_input

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

What's the point of discussing the same mini-source for years?

That simple little snippet of C does show that
I have defeated the halting problem proof. Not
one single person would properly review it in
three years.

Now that LLM systems have increased their memory
capacity 67-fold in the last two years they agree
that I have defeated the halting problem itself.
That little snippet of C is the key basis of my
whole proof.

When it is understood that I have defeated the
halting problem then additional discussion shows
that I also have the basis for eliminating the
hallucination of LLM AI systems.

Does that get you anywhere? It's like mind wandering before
you go to sleep; you don't reach any higher realization to
be able to close it off.

Can you answer my question ?

I have refuted the halting problem. This is
the most important discovery in all of computer
science.

Not a single human reviewer on the planet
will give my C snippet a fair review.

I will continue 10 million times if that is
what it takes to get my C snippet a fair review.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Am 27.10.2025 um 16:19 schrieb olcott:

I have refuted the halting problem. This is
the most important discovery in all of computer
science.

You are manic. And that's not an insult,
but a genuinely well-founded statement.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 11:41 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 27.10.2025 um 16:19 schrieb olcott:

I have refuted the halting problem. This is
the most important discovery in all of computer
science.

You are manic. And that's not an insult,
but a genuinely well-founded statement.

You asked. All that I needed for three years
is this. By refusing to give me this dozens
of people have wasted thousands of hours for
several years.

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.


--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/27/2025 10:04 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 27.10.2025 um 14:15 schrieb olcott:

On 10/27/2025 3:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 25.10.2025 um 19:53 schrieb olcott:

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

This is Claude AI deriving the above sentence by simply
simulating DD by HHH giving me the fair review that every
human has cheated me out of.

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to the HP counter-example input
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/396903511_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_applied_to_the_HP_counter-example_input

Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
the HP counter-example input
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

What's the point of discussing the same mini-source for years?

That simple little snippet of C does show that
I have defeated the halting problem proof. Not
one single person would properly review it in
three years.

Now that LLM systems have increased their memory
capacity 67-fold in the last two years they agree
that I have defeated the halting problem itself.
That little snippet of C is the key basis of my
whole proof.

When it is understood that I have defeated the
halting problem then additional discussion shows
that I also have the basis for eliminating the
hallucination of LLM AI systems.

Does that get you anywhere? It's like mind wandering before
you go to sleep; you don't reach any higher realization to
be able to close it off.

Can you answer my question ?

I have refuted the halting problem. This is

You have certaionly /refused/ the halting problem.

Not a single human reviewer on the planet
will give my C snippet a fair review.

I've gotten up to the elbow in your actual code from GitHub
and found problems.

Your response is to call me dishonest!

(You are completely, utterly unprofessional; your conduct is
not befiting of anyone calling themselves any kind of engineer.)

It is apparent that your /cheat/ code is not actualy working for some reason.

Your Root variable is supposed to make the simulated HHH behave
differently so that it doesn't do abort checking, right?

Now that is hideously wrong and completely invalidates your work.
But never mind; it's not working right. The simulated HHH is behaving
like the root level one.

When we continue the DDD simulation that was left abandoned by
the top-level HHH, we find that the simulated HHH called by that DDD
still performs aborting:

Number of Instructions Executed(10069) == 150 Pages
RECK: ---------------
RECK: simulations for these function still exist:
RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 00103888, EIP == 00001216

This is the suspended simulated DDD. It is stuck in the middle of Decide_Halting_HH.

RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 0014E2B0, EIP == 000015D2

This is the second level of simulation nesting of DDD. This EIP
is pointing straight to HHH. The first simulation level of DDD,
executing Decide_Halting_HH, juwt finished recording an execution trace
event for the second level DDD. That event says that HHH was called.
This must be what triggered the abort.

RECK: ---------------
RECK: continuing simulation of entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 00103888, EIP == 00001216

Now reckoning has come; we restart the top simulated DDD.

New slave_stack at:15e38c

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:16e394
RECK: newly executing: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 0015E350, EIP == 00002172
New slave_stack at:1a8db4
RECK: newly executing: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 001A8D78, EIP == 00002172

Two new DDD simulations appear.

Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

What? The simulated HHH is doing the abort check and returning zero!

RECK: simulation of entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, slave_state == 00103888, EIP == 00002183 reached code_end!
RECK: ---------------
RECK: reckoning completed

And so DDD halts!

When your second and subsequent simulations of HHH call this:

u32 Root = Init_Halts_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded, &code_end, (u32)P,
&master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack);

Root is supposed to be zero. Somehow it looks like this is not
happening, so your HHH, though not a pure function as required, is at
least behaving consistently across simulation levels, causing people's predictions to come true that the simulated DDD and HHH behave the same
as the directly executed one.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 11:58 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Not a single human reviewer on the planet
will give my C snippet a fair review.

I've gotten up to the elbow in your actual code from GitHub
and found problems.

Do I have to start calling you names like Jackass
to get your attention?

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

I am talking about the above in isolation nitwit.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/25 16:19, olcott wrote:

C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}

Not a single human reviewer on the planet
will give my C snippet a fair review.

It's just because nobody can compile a running version of
your fscking program, and we all have a BRS for halting
every program on earth.

--
** **
* tTh des Bourtoulots *
* http://maison.tth.netlib.re/ *
** **

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/25 14:45, olcott wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
ÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿ return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
ÿ HHH(DD);
}

tth@linda:~/Essais$ gcc olcoot.c
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccpdNJve.o: in function `DD':
olcoot.c:(.text+0x1e): undefined reference to `HHH'
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccpdNJve.o: in function `main':
olcoot.c:(.text+0x5f): undefined reference to `HHH'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
tth@linda:~/Essais$

--
** **
* tTh des Bourtoulots *
* http://maison.tth.netlib.re/ *
** **

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/27/2025 11:58 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Not a single human reviewer on the planet
will give my C snippet a fair review.

I've gotten up to the elbow in your actual code from GitHub
and found problems.

Do I have to start calling you names like Jackass
to get your attention?

I have forked your code and published changes; how much more attention
do you want?

I have endowed your x86utm with the ability to validate your
belief that a simulated DD or DDD does not halt.

You should have done this yourself!

You /need/ that in order to validate that your /cheats/ are working

When a top level DDD terminates, but HHH returns 0, you are
claiming that the simulated DDD does not terminate, right?

You have a cheat in place to ensure that: the Root variable:
when that is zero in a simulated HHH, it disableds the abort
code, ensuring runaway recursive behavior.

But when we investigate that with actual code, we find that
the cheat is not working; DDD does terminate, and another
abort detection is seen out of the simulateed HHH.
The simulated HHH seems ot be running with Root == 1.

I've given you the tool to validate that your own cheats are working, so
that when you say that the simulated DDD does not halt, you can be
confident that it doesn't, having actually tested it with the
"reckoning" module.

And here you are, asking for more attention to some incomplete
code fragment and Chat GPT text or whatever.

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Why would I look at this, rather than your complete work
that can execute?

This is not even a complete program; there is no HHH definition.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 1:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Why would I look at this, rather than your complete work
that can execute?

This is not even a complete program; there is no HHH definition.

Because I have changed the subject to this
and will not discuss anything else because
this supersedes and overrules anything else
that anyone can ever say on this specific point.

*It doesn't take a fucking genius to follow this*
HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.

I just takes someone that knows C and it not
a fucking jackass.


--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Now that four different LLM systems have been able
reverse-engineer the non-halting result by merely

Show me their coding experiemnt they performed on your x86utm.

What changes did they make? What did they run? What are the test
results?

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 10/27/2025 2:59 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-10-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Now that four different LLM systems have been able
reverse-engineer the non-halting result by merely

Show me their coding experiemnt they performed on your x86utm.

What changes did they make? What did they run? What are the test
results?

This proves the general idea regardless of the implementation
details of any specific instance.

https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)