[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is over your head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> include the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> access is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> unsolvable.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from   
   >>>>>>>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is   
   >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the   
   >>>>>>>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt   
   >>>>>>>>>> decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does   
   >>>>>>>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from   
   >>>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
   >>>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   >>>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic   
   >>>>>>>>> property.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That the information that HHH is required to report   
   >>>>>>>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes   
   >>>>>>>>> the requirements wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to   
   >>>>>>>> specify the   
   >>>>>>>> encoding rules so that the input contains the full specification   
   >>>>>>>> of the   
   >>>>>>>> behaviour.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with   
   >>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language   
   >>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You are the one who disagrees with the x86 processors about the x86   
   >>>>>> language semantics. When an x86 processor executes a program it   
   >>>>>> executes   
   >>>>>> according to the x86 semantics. When DD is executed according to   
   >>>>>> the x86   
   >>>>>> semantics it halts. Anybody who says that DD specifies a non-halting   
   >>>>>> behaviour disagrees with the x86 semantics.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> But, DD can halt or not halt, right?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When Olcott uses the name DD he means the particular program in his   
   >>>> GitHub repository except when he wants to deceive with equivocation.   
   >>>> The DD is Olcotts repository halts.   
   >>   
   >>> I am doing this in the C programming language so that   
   >>> every detail can be concretely specified and thus no   
   >>> important details are simply abstracted away.   
   >>>   
   >>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>> HHH on line 1081   
   >>> DD on line 1355   
   >>   
   >> The DD on line 1355 is the DD I mentioned above and whicn is listed   
   >> below. HHH always means the HHH on line 1081 except when otherwise   
   >> stated. HHH(DD) means the HHH on line 1081 is called with the pointer   
   >> to the DD on line 1355 as the argument. THat call returns 0, which   
   >> means that DD does not halt.   
   >>   
   >   
   > HHH(DD)==0 has nothing to do with DD executed from main.   
      
   Sure it does, as as DD executed from main calls HHH(DD) which return 0.   
      
   >   
   > The DD executed from main is the caller of HHH(DD) thus   
   > cannot as be one-and-the-same-thing as an argument to HHH.   
   > If you think so then you knowledge of C is abysmal.   
      
      
   Right, and that is the DD that is being asked about.   
      
   >   
   > The input to HHH(DD) specifies a non-halting sequence.   
   >   
      
   No it doesn't, unless you are lying that HHH is a halt decioder.   
      
   A Halt Decider is given the representation of a program, and it is   
   supposed to determine if that program, when directly run, will halt.   
   Thus, if the parameter DD to HHH doesn't represent the DD called by   
   main, you are just admitting that you have just been lying for all these   
   years.   
      
   Perhaps because you are just so stupid you can't understand what the   
   words mean, and so stuck in your error that you refuse to listen when   
   people try to correct you, which make you the worse kind of stupid.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)