Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point FAILED.

On 8/6/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction is a mandatory
prerequisite to further discussion.

BUt ONLY the DDD that calls the HHH that ACTUALLY correct simulates it input, and thus never aborts.

 I can't imagine that anyone having sufficient understanding
of C would not agree that DDD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction. Several
C experts already agreed to this two of them having masters
in computer science: MSCS.

But ONLY for the HHH that ACTUALLY correctly simulates its input, and thus does not abort it.

 People are either disagreeing for trollish pleasure or have
woefully insufficient expertise in the C programming language.
*Either one of these is a deal killer*

No, just pointing out that you are then trying to CHANGE you HHH to break your own definition of what HHH is.

 Once they understand this we need to add one more point
that the "return" instruction of DDD is its halt state.
 === *Here is the last actual sticking point*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive
notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable
if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e.
given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding
output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
 A halt decider computes the mapping from an input finite string
to the behavior that this finite string specifies. No halt decider
ever reports on the actual behavior of the computation that itself
is contained within. This has been a very persistent false assumption.

Right, they compute the answer of what the input actually maps to.
For "Halting" that is does the behavior of the ACTUAL PROGRAM represented by the input reach its final state.

 For the three years that my work has been extensively reviewed
this has been the most difficult point for people to understand.

Because you insist that an INCORECT (because it is partial) simulation of the input defines what the program does

 Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior
of the computation that itself is contained within and not the
behavior that its finite string input specifies.

Because that *IS* what its input ask it.
Why shouldn't it answer about what it is asked?

   Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 

But the input DDD includes the HHH that it calls, or it isn't a full description of the program DDD. (As you say, you can't ask about "the simulator deciding you" only about a specific decider, which might be the one you are given to).
SInce that HHH DOES ABORT, as at the end you claim that is what it "correctly" does, then the claim of the repeatitive loop is just incorret, as there *IS* a condition in the loop, within the HHH that DDD calls. HHH needs to take that into account, which it does not, and thus does not CORRECTLY emulate the behavior of DDD>
Rmember, *ONE* mistake, no matter how small, make the anwer incorret, and thus HHH isn't if fails to exactly reproduce the actual behavior of the input, be it by not actually emulating the code of HHH when DDD calls it, or by stopping its emulation, when the behavior of the instruction says that execution continues, has made a mistake, and thus has given an incorrect answer.
THe fact that the direct exection of DDD calling this HHH, or the actual complete emulation of this DDD calling THIS HHH by an emulator that doesn't give ups shows that DDD calls HHH that will eventually give up and return, shows that DDD *IS* a Halting Computation and thus HHH is wrong, and you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot with a reckless disregard for the truth because you just ignore that fact.
Sorry, but you have just killed your reputation by your self imposed stupidity.