[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > If you carefully studied all of what I said you   
   > would see that the halting problem is a category   
   > error because it directly contradicts one of the   
   > foundational axioms of computer science.   
      
   Any statement that a problem contradicts anything is a categoryerror.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)