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

On 7/7/2025 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*

>
No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>

There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
to the semantics of the C programming language)
can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state.

>
And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return an answer
>

>
You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
you have been told about this dozens of times.
>
What the F is wrong with you?
>

>
It seems you don't understand those words.
>
I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>

>
No decider is ever allowed to report on anything
besides the actual behavior that its input actually
specifies.
>

>
Sure it is, there isn't a "law" that prohibits wrong answer, it just makes it not correct.
>

>
Sure in the same way that reporting the square root
of a rotten egg is incorrect.

  Really, so that is the best you can do, ad hominems and irrevency.
 I guess you are just admitting that you POOPS can't support UTMS, whcih means it can't actually have simulators, and thus no simulating halt deciders.,
 Your whole "logic" system is built on lies
 

>

And, since the input to a halt decider is supposed to be a representation/description (as a term-of-art word) of a Turing Machine, and the behavior that this input specifies is defined as the behavior of directly running that machine,

>
That has always been incorrect.

 No, that is just you lying.
 I quoted a source with the statement of what a Halt Decider is, which says it is that,
 What source do you have for your claims?
 NOTHING, because you are just a pathological liar.
 

That Turing machines cannot take directly executing Turing
Machines as inputs entails that these directly executed
machines are outside of the domain of every Turing machine
based halt decider.
That you cannot understand that is a truism is only your
own lack of understanding.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
*Here is the Linz proof corrected to account for that*
*adapted from bottom of page 319*
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches
     its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly
     reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer