XPost: comp.theory   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/28/2025 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/28/2025 10:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >> On 28/10/2025 21:58, dbush wrote:   
   >>> On 10/28/2025 4:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>    
   >>>   
   >>> So again you admit that Kaz's code proves that D is halting.   
   >>   
   >> Credit where credit is due. By returning 0*, /olcott's/ code proves   
   >> that D is halting.   
   >>   
   >> *i.e. non-halting.   
   >   
   > Yet (as I have said hundreds of times) Turing machines   
   > can only compute the mapping from *INPUT* finite string   
   > machine descriptions to the behavior that these *INPUT*   
   > finite string machine descriptions *ACTUALLY SPECIFY*   
   >   
   > D simulated by H SPECIFIES NOT-HALTING BEHAVIOR.   
   > The halting problem itself makes a category error   
   > when it requires deciders to report on behavior   
   > other than the behavior that *THEIR INPUT SPECIFIES*   
   >   
      
   Think if HHH(DD) returned 0 to DD. Oh my! It halts. HHH(DD) returns   
   anything else it goes into a never ending loop wrt DD's logic. So be it.   
   You are thinking you are smart about DD's logic, such that a little kid   
   can understand? rofl. Afaict, your HHH(DD) is basically this:   
      
   1 HOME   
   5 PRINT "The Olcott All-in-One Halt Decider!"   
   10 INPUT "Shall I halt or not? " ; A$   
   30 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666   
   40 GOTO 10   
   666 PRINT "OK!"   
      
   Right? ;^o   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)