[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)