[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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   
      
   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);   
   }   
      
   That DD simulated by HHH never stops running   
   unless aborted by HHH proves that the input   
   to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior.   
      
   Saying that that some other DD somewhere else   
   does stop as a rebuttal is only the strawman error.   
      
   A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman)   
   is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument   
   different from the one actually under discussion,   
   while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man   
      
   When the halting problem requires HHH to report   
   on the behavior of the DD executed from main()   
   this is erroneous:   
      
   (1) The caller of a function is never an argument to   
   this same function.   
      
   (2) The halting problem is requiring a halt decider   
   to report on behavior that is different that the behavior   
   specified by its input.   
      
   My work on the halting problem is only an aspect of   
   my project to make “true on the basis of meaning   
   expressed in language” reliably computable.   
      
   --   
   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)