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

Op 07.jul.2025 om 20:38 schreef olcott:

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.
 

As usual, no rebuttal, but repeated claims without evidence. On the contrary, the code in Halt7.c shows that I am right. We have pointed out that many times, but you ignore, or do not understand it. Not understanding something is not stupid, but the resistance against learning from errors is.
Halt7.c has several problems, e.g., the cheating with the Root variable. But if we forget that, we see that HHH will return 0 when DDD is given as input. Which makes that HHH returns to DDD and DDD halts.
That is the specification of the input.
Of course, we understand that HHH fails to reach that final halt state when simulating DDD, but that is a property of HHH, not of DDD.