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

On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:

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.
>

And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program, because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.

>
I have corrected you on this too many times.
You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest
or incompetent.
>
*This code proves that you are wrong*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
That you are too F-ing stupid to see this is less
than no rebuttal at all.
>

>
No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its simulation of DDD and returns 0,

That is counter-factual and you would know this
if you had good C++ skills.
>

>
How is it "Counter-Factual"?
>
It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>

 "No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
  always aborts its simulation of DDD"
 That is a false statement. If you understood the
code you would know your error.
 

Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?
I think you have gone off the deep end, and have lost all touch with reality.
I guess what actually happens is real to you.