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

Op 11.jul.2025 om 19:50 schreef olcott:

On 7/11/2025 9:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.jul.2025 om 16:27 schreef olcott:

On 7/11/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.jul.2025 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2025 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/25 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:

*I just proved the fact that*
(1) HHH(DDD) is executed
(2) HHH emulates DDD
(3) emulated DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
(4) emulated HHH emulates another instance of DDD
(5) this DDD calls HHH(DDD) again
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
Its OK if you are no good with the x86 language
and can't understand the code. I began programming
way back when x86 programming was popular.
>
Alternatively the details of how multi-tasking
works are too difficult for you. They are probably
too difficult for most programmers.
>

>
And thus you have proven my point that either you definition of what the input is, or what HHH does is just a lie.
>
But, it seems you are too stupid to understand that problem.
>
Your claims are:
>
1) The input contains only the code shown, and thus does not contain the code of HHH.
>
2) That HHH is simulating the input given to it, and thus JUST that input.
>
3) That HHH simulates the code of HHH.
>

>
The test program HHH is not the program under test DDD.
The program under test and the test program will never
stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.
>

>
Another vague claim without evidence.

>
It not vague at all. You just don't know what
the words mean.
>

If DDD is under test, then also all function called by DDD are under test, including HHH.

>
Since neither HHH nor DDD will ever stop running
unless HHH aborts its DDD, non-halting criteria
has been met.

>
Since HHH halts, DDD halts, too.

Strawman error.
DDD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting behavior.

Counter-factual. DDD includes the code of HHH that aborts and returns, so the input specifies halting behaviour.
Even if HHH cannot see the full specification, the specification does not change.

 Directly executing Turing machines have always been
outside of the domain of every Turing machine decider.

Repeating irrelevant facts, even when true, is no rebuttal.

 HHH(DDD) is ONLY required to report on the behavior
that its input specifies.
 

But a decider must report on the *full* specification of the input, not on a hypothetical non-input that does not abort.