[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      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.   
   >   
   > True. It would if HHH were a halting decider but HHH isn't.   
   >   
      
   If you carefully studied all of what I said you   
   would see that the halting problem is a category   
   error because it directly contradicts one of the   
   foundational axioms of computer science.   
      
   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.   
      
   When we actually measure this property the only way   
   that we can: DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach   
   its own simulated "return" statement final halt state   
   while DD is being simulated by HHH. We see that DD   
   does specify a non-halting sequence.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)