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

On 7/13/25 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

No, it figuered out what pattern you must have meant. Since you implied that there WAS such a pattern (when there isn't) you set it up to fail.
This is basically the fallicy of assuming the conclusion, where you inject as an assumption, an unproven conjecture, and then use the assumption of it being true, to prove that it is true.
That is the Principle of Exlplosion at work.

 That you deny this (with the plausible credentials
that you cited) seems like an MD that does not know
what diseases are.
 

Really? You, who admits that he doesn't use words with their term-of-art meaning tries to deflect by saying someone else doesn't know the meaning.
That just show how deceitful your mind is, and how desperate because you have run out of plausible excuses.
Sorry, but you are just showing you are just a pitiful liar.