XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic and other   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, I did yesterday.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts is not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect answer   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not even   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D), either   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultating   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D) with   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)