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

On 6/7/2025 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-04 15:50:25 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said:
>

They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
direct execution of DDD()

>
No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial halting
decider when it reports) must report whether the direct execution
of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that computation
happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour instead
of DDD().
>

yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is
the caller of HHH(DDD).

>
To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they have not
mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In particular,
whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement that
a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the
computation the input specifies.

>
*People have ignored this for 90 years*

 So you say bot don't show.
 

The only possible way that HHH can report on the
direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on
the behavior of its caller:

 Now you are changing the topic. Your false claim was that "They all
say that HHH must report on the behavior of direct execution of DDD()

Verified fact.

yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is the
caller of HHH(DDD)".
 

And your counter-example is ???
int main()
{
   DDD(); // The HHH(DDD) that DDD calls cannot report on
}        // the behavior of its caller.
Your rebuttals fail to provide enough details
to be more than lame. If you did provide more
details then your rebuttals would be incoherent.
By providing lame rebuttals closure is postponed.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer