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

On 2025-07-13 15:18:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/13/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-12 14:26:09 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 No, it does not. The proof reamins as it was. A proof is valid if there
is no error in the proof. Nothing else is relevant.

 There are errors that you do not understand.

For the purpose of these discussion it is not neessary to understand
your errors beyond that they are errors. This group is not for those
who want to understand errors but for those how want to understand
more about the theory of computations. All readers need to know about
you is that what you say is not the understanding they seek.
--
Mikko