// The following is written in C
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }

*H is a halting decidability decider*

0=Input has pathological relationship to H
1=Input halts
2=Input does not halt

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/11/23 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> // The following is written in C
> //
> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)   // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
> 03
> 04 int D(ptr x)
> 05 {
> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 07   if (Halt_Status)
> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
> 09   return Halt_Status;
> 10 }
> 11
> 12 void main()
> 13 {
> 14   H(D,D);
> 15 }
>
> *H is a halting decidability decider*
>
> 0=Input has pathological relationship to H
> 1=Input halts
> 2=Input does not halt
>

How are your FORMALLY defining "Halting Decidability"?

How do your FORAMALLY define "Pathological relationship"?

Does it work when you fix your input to actually allow a full Turing
Complete input, means H can use a equivalent copy of H, not the H that
is being used to decide it (as would happen with actual Turing Machines)?

(How does H determine that D is calling an equivalent to H?)

Since (1) and (2) are about HALTING, how is that about deciding
decidability?

This is your fatal flaw, you don't know how to formally define
something, which means you