XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54:   
   >> On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17:   
   >>>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15:   
   >>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> phobia.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future   
   >>>>>>>>>>> states.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser   
   >>>>>>>>> focused on your   
   >>>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject   
   >>>>>>>>>> is closed.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Whaaat ...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.   
   >>>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,   
   >>>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;   
   >>>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the   
   >>>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's   
   >>>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine   
   >>>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the   
   >>>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the   
   >>>>>>> halting   
   >>>>>>> problem.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is inaccurate.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem   
   >>>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations   
   >>>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately   
   >>>> self-contradictory specification.   
   >>>   
   >>> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point   
   >>> to say "specifies to its decider".   
   >>   
   >> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running   
   >> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input   
   >> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior.   
   >   
   > That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment   
   > proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour.   
      
   Yes if you are stupid enough to believe that the caller   
   of a function is always one-and-the-same-thing as the   
   argument to this dame function.   
      
   >  If   
   > the DD simulated by HHH specifies a different behaviour then the DD   
   > simulated by HHH is not the DD given as the input. If the answer   
   > returned by HHH(DD) does not mean "halts" then HHH is not a halt   
   > decider nor a partial halt decider.   
   >   
   >> The caller of a function is never an argument to   
   >> this same function.   
   >   
   > A C function cannot have any function as an argument, only a pointer   
   > to a function of a particular type. A pointer to any function of the   
   > right type can be given as the argument, including the a pointer to   
   > the calling function.   
   >   
   >> The DD executed in main that   
   >> calls HHH(DD) is not the same DD as the one that   
   >> HHH simulates.   
   >   
   > However, it is the one that is geven as the input in HHH(DD).   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)