[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result is equally valid.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never being   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore is not a decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Any statement that a problem contradicts anything is a categoryerror.   
   >>   
   >> Flibble was the first one to use this term that I am aware of.   
   >   
   > Do you mean the term "category error"? It is a well known term   
   > though many authors prefer "category mistake" for the same   
   > meaning.   
   >   
      
   Flibble was the first one to use the term category   
   error applied to the halting problem. Later on   
   after I explained all of the details in a dialogue   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)