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

On 7/9/2025 8:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/9/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2025 om 17:17 schreef olcott:

On 7/8/2025 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

 

An actual rebuttal requires proving that Turing machines can take
directly executing Turing machines (that are not finite string
encodings) as inputs.

Shut it. Nobody is advancing that view.
 

*If you have enough knowledge then that is self evident*
All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their actual
inputs. This entails that they never compute any mapping from
non-inputs.

It matters more what they map it to, i.e. which mapping they compute.
HHH does not compute the halting function.
 

It is a matter of verified fact that HHH does
correctly determine that DDD correctly emulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own emulated
final halt state.

The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and halt,

abort and stop running *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS*
abort and halt
That you keep ignoring this is not my mistake.

How could HHH abort and not halt?
 

None of the code in HHH can possibly help DDD
correctly emulated by HHH to reach its own
emulated final halt state.
_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]
The only valid rebuttal requires someone to
show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language actually reaches
its own final halt state at address: [000021a3]

but HHH is unable to reach that part. This failure of HHH does not make
the specification any different. It only shows that this simulating
decider is not the right tool for this input.

The behavior that the input to HHH(DDD) actually
specifies is the only behavior that any decider
can possibly report on.
That anyone believes that HHH is required to report
on the behavior of a non-input merely proves a lack
of sufficient understanding of how Turing machine
deciders work.

HHH should report on the behaviour specified, not on the behaviour it
can see. If HHH has bugs, so that it does not see the full
specification, the specification does not change.
Closing your eyes and pretend that what you do not see does not exists,
is childish.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer