XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/4/2025 11:49 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-04, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/4/2025 10:36 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-10-04, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/4/2025 10:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>>>> On 04/10/2025 13:56, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/4/2025 12:02 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-10-03, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> For the set of H/P pairs of   
   >>>>>>>> decider H and input P:   
   >>>>>>>> If H says halts then P loops   
   >>>>>>>> If H says loops then P halts   
   >>>>>>>> making H(P) always incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Nope, it's like (from my Lisp session):   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> How is it that you can disagree with verified facts?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The incomputability of the Halting Problem is a verified fact,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Within the premise that H must report on the behavior of D.   
   >>>> yet not when H reports on the behavior specified by its input D.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, there you go that is the answer to "how is it that you can disagree   
   >>> with verified facts"; you spew nonsensical, cranky garbage in which it   
   >>> supposed to be understood that "the behavior specified by its input D"   
   >>> and "the behavior of D" are magically two different entities.   
   >>>   
   >>> Magical thinking.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The behavior of D and the behavior of the input D are not   
   >>>> the same when an input calls its own simulating termination   
   >>>> analyzer.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then that termination analyzer is obviously incorrect.   
   >>   
   >> That you still don't understand that embedded_H is   
   >> correct when it reports on the recursive simulation   
   >   
   > I specifically understand that it is incorrect.   
   >   
   >> behavior of its correct partial simulation of its   
   >> input is not my mistake.   
   >   
   > The partial simulation specifies termination. (It has to, otherwise it   
   > is not a correct simulation of the correct input.)   
   >   
      
   It does not specify termination of the input it specifies   
   termination of embedded_H itself. The input would keep   
   going forever.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)