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

Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:32:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/6/2025 3:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jun.2025 om 18:03 schreef olcott:

On 6/5/2025 2:48 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:

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

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:

>
The relevant question is not what HHH can report but what it does and
what it is required. DDD() is known to halt so HHH(DDD) is required
to report that it halts. But HHH(DDD) does not report so.
>

The only DDD that is known to halt is the DDD that calls HHH(DDD).
HHH(DDD) IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS CALLER.
>

Counterfactual. It has nothing to do with the caller. World-class
simulators show that the exact same input halts.

 
You are incorrectly calling it an *INPUT* when it never was an actual
*INPUT* it was always a *NON-INPUT CALLER*
People have made this same stupid mistake for 90 years.

The thing is, DDD is both, by construction. Data can be code. The
contradiction is exactly that HHH's return value makes the simulation
of DDD wrong. You can't sidestep that by saying they are different DDD's.

--
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.