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

On 7/8/25 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:

On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*

>
No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>

There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
to the semantics of the C programming language)
can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state.

>
And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return an answer
>

>
You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
you have been told about this dozens of times.
>
What the F is wrong with you?
>

>
It seems you don't understand those words.
>
I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>

>
No decider is ever allowed to report on anything
besides the actual behavior that its input actually
specifies.
>

And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program, because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.

>
I have corrected you on this too many times.
You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest
or incompetent.
>
*This code proves that you are wrong*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
That you are too F-ing stupid to see this is less
than no rebuttal at all.
>

>
No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its simulation of DDD and returns 0,

That is counter-factual and you would know this
if you had good C++ skills.
>

>
How is it "Counter-Factual"?
>
It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>

>
"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
  always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>
That is a false statement. If you understood the
code you would know your error.
>

>
Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?

 You have a reading comprehension problem.
When critique words you are strictly not
allowed to change even a single word without
being dishonest.
 *Don't even remove the comma*
"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
    always aborts its simulation of DDD"
 If you can't figure how how that is false we have
conclusively proved your lack of sufficient technical
competence.
 

So, you assert that there is a way that that exact code HHH, when run, will NOT abort its simulation of that exact DDD?
Please try to show a case where that HHH, as defined, doesn't abort its simulation of DDD.
If you can't then you are just admitting, AGAIN, that you are nothing but a liar.
It seems that you don't understand what your words mean or how computers work.
Note, that HHH, as defined, is NOT some other HHH, like your hypothetical one which has been changed, but THAT HHH, as defined, in the file Halt7.c as has been sitting in your github account for years.
You have posted the trace of x86utm executiong that code, and it aborts its simulation at a precise point, and EVERY time you run that exact same code, with the exact same input, it will do the same.
I guess you don't believe that computers are deterministic, but that they can arbitrarily decide to do something diffferent (and still be considered as "working").
ALl you are doing is proving that you are just a damned stupid and ignorant liar that has no idea what he is talking about, and has buried his intelegence under a humungous pile of lies.
Sorry, but it is a fact that you have sunk any reputation of knowing something with your repeated stupid lies, and failure to even try to find a reason, other than you say so, to support any of your words.