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

On 7/10/25 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2025 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/9/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2025 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/9/25 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2025 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/25 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

>
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".
>

>
All of my claims are easily verified facts to those
with the capacity to verify them.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

>
Not a program, must include the code for HHH to be simulatable.
>

>
You must have dementia.
I have told you that HHH does emulate DDD
then it emulates itself emulating DDD 500 times now.
>

>
And thus you admit that you are lying.
>

>
*Here is the proof*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
>

>
SO, you admit that HHH fails to emulate JUST the input,

 *I have told you that HHH does emulate DDD*
*then it emulates itself emulating DDD 500 times now*

And the question is HOW can it?
You claim it isn't part of the input, and thus it isn't AVAILABLE for HHH to emualate.
You don't seem to understand that HHH isn't ALLOWED to look at memory that isn't part of its input, without MAKING that memory part of its input.

 *NOW I PROVED THAT*
*See if you can remember this by your next reply*
 

No, you are just proving that you don't understand how programs and input are defined, and thus make yourself into a liar.
All you re doing by establishing that HHH did in fact simulate HHH is to show that you LIED about the definition of HHH and its input.
It is clear that the code of HHH *IS* part of the input, and thus your claim of an infinite set of them all looking at "the same" input is just a lie. This makes your whole argument just a lie, as each DIFFERENT version of DDD is only emulated for a SINGLE value of N steps, and all of those, when correctly simulated farther, WILL halt.
It seems you can't see your errors, because you just don't understand what you are saying.
Note also, your HHH also just doesn't correctly emulate its input, as it aborts part way through. Note, words like emulate, when not modified to indicate incompleteness, imply that they are COMPLETE emulations of the input, especially when you use the not reaching a final state of the emulation to indicate non-halting.
It is sort of like saying you ran the marathon, when you actually gave up after jogging 50 feet. The claim of "running the marathon" in that case is just a lie, as is your claim that HHH "emulated" HHH.
It seems that a major part of your problem is that you have convinced yourself of the damned lie of subjective reality, thinking that somehow HHH is DEFINING the behavior of its input, instead of the objective reality that it is mearly discovering the already existing behavior specifed by that input. The fact that HHH decides to stop looking at the behavior of the input doesn't mean that behavior ends, but the actual behavior continues to its end.
Your idea is the equivalent of saying that if you stop reading a book, close it and put it down, that the story in the book stops and doesn't continue. The story was aways there, you are just learning of it by reading it. In the same way, the input, a representation of a program (which means it DOES need to include the code of HHH to be such) always has had its full behavior, which matches what happens if we run that program, or completely simulate that full input (like HHH1 does) and HHH by stopping only makes itself ignorant of the facts, just like you like to do, and thus gets the wrong answer.
Sorry, this *IS* the truth, but you are going to not understand it because you have shown yourself incapable of understand truth and reality or even basic computer science. Maybe part of the problem was your neglect to learn the needed basics of mathematics, which are intergral to this part of computer science.