Re: Olcott is correct on this point

On 6/15/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-14 15:24:58 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
 

A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.

 Worng.

A partial halt decider is only allowed to report on the
behavior specified by the sequence of state transitions
of its input.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) is not allowed to report on sum(5,7).

The exitence of the caller and the identity if one exists are not
even mentioned in the halting problem.

Because no one ever noticed that it is impossible
to define *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that *ACTUALLY DOES* the
opposite of whatever its value its corresponding
partial halt decider returns.
int main()
{
   DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that does not report on
}        // the behavior of its caller.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩     // Peter Linz Proof.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
embedded_H does not report on the behavior of the
computation that its actual self is contained within.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
Only because I have spent 22 years on this have I
noticed details that no one else has ever noticed before.

THerefore they don't affect what
a halting decider or a partial halting report is required to report.
 There are partial halting deciders that can correctly report on the
behaviours of some of their callers.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer