Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/9/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2025 om 17:17 schreef olcott:

On 7/8/2025 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

An actual rebuttal requires proving that Turing machines can take
directly executing Turing machines (that are not finite string
encodings) as inputs.

Shut it. Nobody is advancing that view.

*If you have enough knowledge then that is self evident*
All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their actual
inputs. This entails that they never compute any mapping from
non-inputs.

It matters more what they map it to, i.e. which mapping they compute.
HHH does not compute the halting function.

The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and halt,

abort and stop running *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS*
abort and halt
That you keep ignoring this is not my mistake.

How could HHH abort and not halt?

but HHH is unable to reach that part. This failure of HHH does not make
the specification any different. It only shows that this simulating
decider is not the right tool for this input.
HHH should report on the behaviour specified, not on the behaviour it
can see. If HHH has bugs, so that it does not see the full
specification, the specification does not change.
Closing your eyes and pretend that what you do not see does not exists,
is childish.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.