Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:59 -0500, olcott wrote:

 
Yes all other people (especially Dennis Bush) are saying
that H(D) is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D() never noticing that this stupidly
requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its caller.

 
If the H above means the H that the HP refers to. The H is required to
report its argument's behavior (ie. by H(D)). But NOT required by simulation.

 
It turns out that no one ever noticed that simulating halt
deciders nullify the HP counter-example input in that this
input cannot possibly reach its contradictory part.
 

The HP does not care what D does (simply to say).
 

 
Everyone says that H(D) must re[port on the behavior of
the direct execution of D().

That is what the HP asks.

The HP only requires: H(D)==1 iff D() halts
 
 

 
int main()
{
   D(); // calls H(D)
}
 
Which requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its
caller instead of reporting on the behavior that its
input actually specifies.

That is no problem. H does not care what D does inside (simply to say).
The HP simply asks for a H that "H(D)==1 iff D() halts".