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

On 7/7/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
Sure it is, there isn't a "law" that prohibits wrong answer, it just makes it not correct.
>

 Sure in the same way that reporting the square root
of a rotten egg is incorrect.

Really, so that is the best you can do, ad hominems and irrevency.
I guess you are just admitting that you POOPS can't support UTMS, whcih means it can't actually have simulators, and thus no simulating halt deciders.,
Your whole "logic" system is built on lies

 

And, since the input to a halt decider is supposed to be a representation/description (as a term-of-art word) of a Turing Machine, and the behavior that this input specifies is defined as the behavior of directly running that machine,

 That has always been incorrect.

No, that is just you lying.
I quoted a source with the statement of what a Halt Decider is, which says it is that,
What source do you have for your claims?
NOTHING, because you are just a pathological liar.

 

you claim is really that that the ONLY thing that HHH is ALLOWED to answer about is that direct execution, which you also are trying to claim it doesn't need to.
>
So, you are just showing that you are just a liar and have created a fantasy world which you are trying to live in full of your own self- contradictions, but divorced from the actual rules of the world.
>

 You have never even found an actual single mistake.

Sure I have, you are just to stupid to understand them.

 

This is just your manifistions of your insanity,
>

Most people here don't get that because they have no
actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot
the words of textbooks.
>

>
No, you are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about, and can just parrot the lies that you made up and have no support for.]
>
Better to parrot truth then to be imaginatively telling lies (and your aren't even being very imaginative any more).

 Everything that I said is a verified fact.
Every rebuttal has been counter-factual at best.
That you don't seem to even understand what recursion
is proves that you are insufficiently competent.
 

No, everything you have said is a pathetic liar, out of your own perverted mind.
YOu have NO sources to backup your claims, except maybe you claim you are God and thus above things,
But since you aren't God, that fails too, you are just a pervert that seems to have gotten away with it, maybe because you convinced them you were too insane to be tried.