Subject: Finally reached agreement on the C portion of my halting theorem refutation

*Succinct refutation of the Halting Theorem* https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md

DD is to be construed as a finite string of C source code of
a C function. HHH is to be construed as a C interpreter that
simulates C source code. HHH can simulate itself simulating
DD if needed.

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

01 int DD()
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 HHH(DD);
12 }

There does not exist any implementation of C function HHH
that simulates C function DD according to the operational
semantics of C such that the simulated C function DD reaches
its own simulated return statement in any N finite number
of simulations.

--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

Computation(Olcott)
Paraphrase of Emil Post definition of computation
All computations are equivalent to the application of finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs to derive
any and all outputs.

Because Post canonical systems are Turing-equivalent, anything
that cannot be derived by applying finite string transformations
to finite strings is outside the scope of Church?Turing computation.

Decider(Olcott)
Correcting the misnomer term-of-the-art: decider
Every Decider(Olcott) must apply finite string transformation
inference steps to their finite string inputs that are relevant
to the decision criteria. It must make its decision on this basis.

Halt Decider(Olcott)
Decider(Olcott) entails that Halt Decider(Olcott) H(D) must apply
finite-string inference steps according to the operational semantics
of the source-code computation language of D. The only way to determine
the halting property of a finite string input is to examine the same
beha