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

On 7/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-14 13:19:15 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/14/2025 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

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.

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 *There are errors with the proof*

 You make errors with proofs. But the uncomputability of halting can be
(and has been) proven without errors.

 That the errors have never been noticed before
IS NOT THE SAME AS THERE ARE NO ERRORS.