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

On 7/11/25 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.jul.2025 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2025 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/25 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:

*I just proved the fact that*
(1) HHH(DDD) is executed
(2) HHH emulates DDD
(3) emulated DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
(4) emulated HHH emulates another instance of DDD
(5) this DDD calls HHH(DDD) again
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
Its OK if you are no good with the x86 language
and can't understand the code. I began programming
way back when x86 programming was popular.
>
Alternatively the details of how multi-tasking
works are too difficult for you. They are probably
too difficult for most programmers.
>

>
And thus you have proven my point that either you definition of what the input is, or what HHH does is just a lie.
>
But, it seems you are too stupid to understand that problem.
>
Your claims are:
>
1) The input contains only the code shown, and thus does not contain the code of HHH.
>
2) That HHH is simulating the input given to it, and thus JUST that input.
>
3) That HHH simulates the code of HHH.
>

>
The test program HHH is not the program under test DDD.
The program under test and the test program will never
stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.
>

>
Another vague claim without evidence.

 It not vague at all. You just don't know what
the words mean.
 

If DDD is under test, then also all function called by DDD are under test, including HHH.

 Since neither HHH nor DDD will ever stop running
unless HHH aborts its DDD, non-halting criteria
has been met.

Which means that if *THE* HHH was defined to not abort, it would fail to be a desider, by failing to answer.
And if HHH does abort, then its simulaiton just doesn't qualify to determine if DDD is non-halting.
The correct simulation of any DDD that calls an HHH that returns an answer will reach a final state, and thus any HHH that returns 0 is wrong.
It seems you think the concept of computers is just intrinsically broken as programs seem to be able to just randomly change what they do.
That or

 

You are confusing yourself with the construct where the program under test is in the same memory as the program being tested. It would be much easier to understand for you to keep the input for HHH separated from HHH, by using a copy of HHH in the input.

 To divide the analysis of the program under test
from the test program we only see if DDD simulated
by HHH can reach its own simulated final halt state.
 

But HHH is also PART of DDD, somthing you either are to stupid to understand or just lie about.
I guess you are just proving that you fail to understand 1st year concepts of programming.
Either way, you are just showing that you are a pathological liar, the pathology either being not understanding the need for truth, or the pathology of not being able to learn basic facts.
That is what you have proved to the word about yourself.