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

On 7/14/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-13 15:17:22 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/13/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-12 14:34:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/12/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-11 15:22:32 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/11/2025 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:26:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 12:25:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/9/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-08 14:21:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/8/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 14:15:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/7/2025 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 03:12:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*

>
No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>

There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
to the semantics of the C programming language)
can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state.

>
And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return an answer
>

>
You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
you have been told about this dozens of times.
>
What the F is wrong with you?
>

>
It seems you don't understand those words.
>
I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of steps.

>
No decider is ever allowed to report on anything
besides the actual behavior that its input actually
specifies.

>
Unless you can quote some respectable author your prohibitions are
meaningless.

>
To people that never had any actual understanding and
can only parrot textbooks. They need to see this things
in other textbooks.

>
People who can parrot textbooks know better than people who cannot.
That you can't when you should shows that you can't even parrot
textbooks.

>
I just reverse-engineer what the truth actually is.
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches
     its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly
     reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩

>
The above does not make sense. There are one subordinate clause
and two nmain clauses but they are not linked to a sentence.
Whithout a sentence nothing is said.

>
The reason that I gave you a link to the whole
original proof is so that you could see how it
makes sense. Maybe the original proof doesn't
make sense to you either?

>
I'm not talking about any proof, I'm talking about your words and
symbols quored above. What is written in the book does make sense.
In particular, clauses are meaningfully linked to sentences.
Perhaps the presentation could be clearer but it is intended for
students that already know and understand the earlier parts of the
book.
>

Linz tried to make two blocks of code into
English sentences.

>
The "blocks of code" are main clauses. They use abrevations because those
are easier to read than a full natural language sentence. There are other
clauses so that all clauses together form a sentence. In particuralr, ther
is an "and" between them. The sentence is not a truth bearer. Instead it
expresses a desire.
>
If you want to say something you should learn to construct meaningful
sentences.

>
That you cannot understand what I say

>
A false calim aobut another persion is a sin even when presented
as a subordiante clause.

>
That you cannot understand that you do not understand
what I say is not you understanding what I say.

>
Nevertheless a false claim about another prestion is a sin.

>
When you prove that you don't understand something and
I claim that you don't understand this then my statement
is factually correct.

>
What I understand or not is not important eonough to lie about or even
mention.

>
You have proven do not understand some of these things.

 It is true that your presentation does not make ehough sense that there
could be something to be understood. But in that case it is sufficient
that I understand that you said nothing and can point out that to those
readers how may fail to notice.
 

And some of my readers have ADHD so badly that when
I correct their mistakes hundreds of times they never
notice any of the words of any of those corrections.
*Here is one example of that*
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
_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]
*Anyone with sufficient skill at programming sees that*
When one or more instructions of DDD are emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language by
some HHH, no DDD ever reaches its "ret" instruction.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer