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

On 08/07/2025 17:07, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:

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:

 

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.

Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't
call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
similar) simulator that would *not* abort.
 

And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program,
because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.

>
I have corrected you on this too many times.
You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
incompetent.
*This code proves that you are wrong*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
>

No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its
simulation of DDD and returns 0,

That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++
skills.
>

How is it "Counter-Factual"?
It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>

"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
   always aborts its simulation of DDD"
That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know
your error.
>

Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?

>
You have a reading comprehension problem.
When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a single
word without being dishonest.
"No, that code proves that HHH as defined
     always aborts its simulation of DDD"
If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
your lack of sufficient technical competence.

Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not
being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?

This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if you understood xxx you would realise it is true".
Even when you break the claim down into some small step that would need to be true (and patentely is not), PO will give no explanation saying simply "it is true" or "that is not what I said" or whatever, giving no actual explanation of what he claimed.
I call that his non-responsive mode.  When he goes into his non-responsive mode, there's little point in pursuing the point - just treat it as PO agreeing that he's talking bollocks.
It's akin to PO claiming some mystic ability like having the power to levitate and travel to other places purely with the power of his mind.  You challenge him to demonstrate this ability and he responds "if you understood yoga (or whatever) sufficiently you would acknowledge he had that power, but that he is not going to actually demonstrate it".  It's a joke, and should be called out then ignored.  Playing his silly game is pointless - you're effectively being trolled.
Or perhaps he'll suddenly change his mind and give in, and actually answer your question, hehe!
Mike.