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

On 7/9/25 8:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-08 14:21:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/8/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 14:15:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/7/2025 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 03:12:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
Unless you can quote some respectable author your prohibitions are
meaningless.

>
To people that never had any actual understanding and
can only parrot textbooks. They need to see this things
in other textbooks.

>
People who can parrot textbooks know better than people who cannot.
That you can't when you should shows that you can't even parrot
textbooks.

>
I just reverse-engineer what the truth actually is.
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
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⟩

>
The above does not make sense. There are one subordinate clause
and two nmain clauses but they are not linked to a sentence.
Whithout a sentence nothing is said.
>

 The reason that I gave you a link to the whole
original proof is so that you could see how it
makes sense. Maybe the original proof doesn't
make sense to you either?
 Linz tried to make two blocks of code into
English sentences. I kept them as blocks of code.
Linz embedded descriptions of these blocks within
the blocks. I moved them after each block.
 

But those are not "two block of code" but two possible operations that H could do.
IF H^ (H^) will halt, then H (H^) (H^) needs to go to Qy
IF H^ (H^) will not halt, then H (H^) (H^) needs to go to Qn.
The design of H^ D is that it duplicates its input (an operation that can be proved to be doable with a Turing Machine( and then fall into a copy of the code for H with D D on the tape with the very slight tail modification that Qy is made into a non-terminal state, an infinite loop.
Thus H^ (H^) will duplicate its input and end up at the equivalent of the starting state of H with the tape being (H^) (H^)
If the algorithm of H says that H (H^) (H^) predicts that H^ (H^) will halt, it will go to Qy, which has been modified to be non-terminal and loop forever, and thus that algorithm is just incorrect.
If the algorithm of H says that H (H^) (H^) predicts that H^ (H^) will never halt, then H goes to Qn, and H^ will halt, thus the algorithm was incorrect.
Note, as I said, the two cases are not two blocks of code in H, they are representing the two possible broad paths that the algorithm of H could take. By its requrements, it must do one of the two, and which one it should do to be correct is clearly defined.
It seems from you "explaination" that you don't understand what he is talking about, as you paraphrase what he says incorrectly.
Admittedly, the fact that he takes the method of proof by contradiction, which seems to be a method that you just don't understand is part of your problem, but that is really just your lack of understanding of classical logic.