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

Op 13.jul.2025 om 17:38 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2025 1:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.jul.2025 om 17:21 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.jul.2025 om 23:05 schreef olcott:

On 7/11/2025 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:35 schreef olcott:

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*
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
   *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and*
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
   *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt*
>
>

>

The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and halt,

>
abort and stop running
*IS NOT THE SAME THING AS*
abort and halt

>
Another claim without evidence.
>
>

*It is common knowledge in the theory of computation*
>

>
Another claim without evidence.
>

>
*Your lack of knowledge of computer science is not a rebuttal*
>
Look at the definition of a Turing Machine (e.g., the one here). The machine has states. Each state can be final or non-final. If the machine's state is non-final, in the next step the machine "does" something, namely, it can write something on the tape, move its head, and/or change its state to a different state. This is how the machine makes a progress.

>
So, aborting the simulation when the machine has not yet reached its final state, is a violation of the Turing Machine.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
So you don't understand that DDD simulated by
pure simulator HHH keeps repeating its first
line forever?

>
Irrelevant, because that is not what HHH does.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 I stipulated this HHH <is> a pure simulator temporarily
overriding and superseding everything else that I ever
said about HHH.

You can stipulate that, but is irrelevant for the HHH you published in Halt7.c. *That* HHH is not a pure simulator. The fact that a pure simulator fails is no proof for the correctness of the non-pure simulator.
Dreaming of other simulators with other behaviour does not change the factual behaviour of the HHH we are discussing.