Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort

On 3/23/24 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:

On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>

 That would entail that H must report on different behavior
than the behavior that H actually sees thus violate the
definition of a decider that must compute the mapping from
its inputs...

Nope.
You are just showing yourself to be a stupid liar.
Where in the DEFINITION of Compute the Mapping of the Input to the Mapped Output does it say that the decider has to be able to "see" that property of the input?

 On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >
 > The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
 > the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
 > external H means *the code of H affects its*
 > *behavior, and that must be taken into account*
 Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
     The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
    whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
    changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
    and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
    light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)

Right, Your "C Function D" which uses an externally supplied function not part of itself is ILLEGAL in Computatin Theory, as it isn't a Computation.
YOU don't understand that, and neither to your "friend" that you quote.
YOu are just proving that you are just TOO STUPID to be able to make any assertios about COmputation Theory.
You are just a PATHETIC HYPOCRITICAL IGNORANT PATHOLOGICAL LYING IDIOT.