XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation   
   >>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH   
   >>> can only see that DD is calling the same function   
   >>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in   
   >>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.   
   >>   
   >> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.   
   >>   
   >> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH   
   >> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several   
   >> lines!)   
   >>   
   >   
   > Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within   
   > the context of this.   
   >   
   > int DD()   
   > {   
   >    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >    if (Halt_Status)   
   >      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >    return Halt_Status;   
   > }   
   >   
   > On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > > On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   > >>    
   > >>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D   
   > >>     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never   
   > >>     stop running unless aborted then...   
   > >   
   > > I also agreed to these words, at least four times.   
   > >   
   >   
   > The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify   
   > non-halting behavior.   
      
   All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;   
   where the bar is at for proving something.   
      
   > Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from   
   > their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
      
   Yes, /a/ mapping. There is only one mapping. The mapping is   
   the abstract halting function.   
      
   There are no deciders which compute that mapping, only partial   
   deciders.   
      
   > state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   > specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic   
   > property.   
      
   The mapping is a function.  It assigns /one/ value to each   
   domain element.  The finite representation D is a domain element   
   which maps to one truth value.   
      
   Yet you claim that HHH1(DD) == 1 and HHH(DD) == 0 are both   
   right.   
      
   That cannot be; the mapping doesn't support it.   
      
   It cannot be that two deciders are following a different mapping   
   such that both can be correct when they contradict each other.   
      
   The mapping they must be calculating must correspond to the   
   halting function. If the disagree, one of the two is not following   
   the halting functions and is therefore incorrect.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)