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

On 7/8/25 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2025 12:44 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 11:22:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/8/2025 11:10 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:14:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/8/2025 2:15 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:38:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

"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.

Lolwut? Please explain how HHH runs forever.

I didn't say that it runs forever.

You said it didn't always abort. How does it halt without aborting?

 

*I denied these words not your paraphrase of them*
"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its simulation
of DDD"

 

Yes, the negation of that is "not always". Or what?
>

 When you understand my code well enough you
will understand the mistake. The key part of
my code that you remain totally blind to is
the source of the mistake.
 

And what is that "key part of the code"?
The piece that you LIED to it about a pattern being non-halting?
Sorry, you are just showing that you are full of it, and just a pathological liar.
You can't actually SHOW anything, just hide behind smoke screens, as you don't have any actual facts to support your claims, because you don't seem to know what a fact is.