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

On 6/7/25 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

No, YOUR SYSTEM fails to provide the decider with enough details about the input to define the mapping.
Fix that by including the code for the PROGRAM HHH into the representation of the input (which HHH looks at anyway to emulate itself, so it really does need to be it), which also requires that HHH be made into an actual program and thus have a defined algorithm (which you needed to do to run it anyway).
Thus, When we do those fixes, HHH has been given all the information required to determine (but not necesarily compute) the answer to the question does the program represented by the input halt.
Your problem is that your argument doesn't allow for either of those things to be done, or your argument breaks, and thus you whole argument is just based on the lie of a category error, that neither your HHH or the input DDD are actually programs (or their representations) and thus you are just shown to be lying about even talking about Computation Theory.