Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of
 their caller
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 16:39:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:39:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f7236405f11469ad97f9c31a5094e4ab";
	logging-data="305133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/z0Xk5RJzd6HKGRBdB8wF2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:thjWn0lE/By9Pb1slqZvFEUMldw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250603-6, 6/3/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2008

They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
direct execution of DDD()

yet never bother to notice
that the directly executed DDD() is the caller of HHH(DDD).

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD); // When DDD calls HHH(DDD) this HHH is not
   return;   // accountable for the behavior of its caller
}

On the other hand HHH(DDD) is accountable for the
behavior that its actual input actually specifies.

HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)...

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     *would never stop running unless aborted* then

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer