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

On 7/12/2025 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-11 15:25:29 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/11/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:35:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2025 5:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:>

All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their actual inputs. This entails that they never
compute any mapping from non-inputs.

>
At least one thing you understand.
>

>
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
*The Linz proof does not understand this*

>
Proofs don't understand. They prove.

>
It fails to prove undecidability when the decider
correctly excludes directly executed Turing machines
from its domain.

 That does not change the last sentence of the proof. Therefore the
proof proves what it would prove anyway.
 

It completely invalidates the proof.
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
The fact that DD simulated by HHH cannot reach its
own final halt state makes the undecidable input decidable
as non-halting.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer