[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    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   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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   
   >>   
   >> The DD on line 1355 is the DD I mentioned above and whicn is listed   
   >> below. HHH always means the HHH on line 1081 except when otherwise   
   >> stated. HHH(DD) means the HHH on line 1081 is called with the pointer   
   >> to the DD on line 1355 as the argument. THat call returns 0, which   
   >> means that DD does not halt.   
   >>   
   >   
   > HHH(DD)==0 has nothing to do with DD executed from main.   
      
   True. It would if HHH were a halting decider but HHH isn't.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)