XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/22/2025 3:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 2:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, André G  Isaak  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >>>>>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp that the   
   >>>>> "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   >>>>> description of HHH.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Furthermore, he doesn't get that it doesn't literally have to be HHH,   
   >>>> but the same algorithm: a workalike.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The HHH analyzing DD's halting could be in C, while the HHH   
   >>>> called by DD could be in Python.   
   >>>   
   >>> DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation   
   >>> and you try to get away with lying about it.   
   >>   
   >> I'm saying that's not a requirement in the halting problem.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yet again with deflection.   
   > That the input to HHH(DD) specfies non-haltin   
   False, as you have admitted otherwise:   
      
   On 10/20/2025 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
    > On 10/20/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:   
    >> And it is a semantic tautology that a finite string description of a   
    >> Turing machine is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of the   
    >> described machine, including whether it halts when executed directly.   
    >> And it is this semantic property that halt deciders are required to   
    >> report on.   
    >   
    > Yes that is all correct   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)