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

On 7/13/2025 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/25 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2025 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2025 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:13:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>

As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the input (which
aborts after a few cycles o simulation), then the simulating HHH could
reach the final halt state without abort.

>

It is a very easily verified fact that the input never aborts anything
at all.

>
Only because it is aborted in turn.

>
HHH(DDD) simulates its input until it sees that
DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.

>
Then why does the direct execution of DDD halt?
>

>
The direct execution is a different sequence of steps
because it is reaping the benefits of HHH having already
aborted its own input.
>

>
So?
>

>
Its nuts to expect the exact same behavior
from a different sequence of steps.
>
HHH1(DDD)==1 and HHH(DDD)==0 are both correct and
are different because they measure a different
sequence of steps.
>
>

>
Claude.ai agrees
https://claude.ai/share/da9b8e3f-eb16-42ca-a9e8-913f4b88202c
>

 Because you lied to it.
 

That it figured out exactly what the actual non-halting
pattern behavior was on its own all by itself proves
that it understands how and why I am correct.
That you deny this (with the plausible credentials
that you cited) seems like an MD that does not know
what diseases are.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer