Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 09:17:32 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <10239ts$3mfee$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me> <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <1020tgu$2u99v$1@dont-email.me> <1021gmv$3327l$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 08:17:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="926e0a0316ccca2b43c38f3e12481929";
	logging-data="3882446"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pFGZqrqrh0HpMh8iaFJE+"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vbtxbfMf80jmCkwiEhay/apeoBw=

On 2025-06-07 14:01:03 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/7/2025 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-04 15:50:25 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
>>>>> direct execution of DDD()
>>>> 
>>>> No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial halting
>>>> decider when it reports) must report whether the direct execution
>>>> of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that computation
>>>> happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour instead
>>>> of DDD().
>>>> 
>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is
>>>>> the caller of HHH(DDD).
>>>> 
>>>> To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they have not
>>>> mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In particular,
>>>> whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement that
>>>> a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the
>>>> computation the input specifies.
>>> 
>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>> 
>> So you say bot don't show.
>> 
>>> The only possible way that HHH can report on the
>>> direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on
>>> the behavior of its caller:
>> 
>> Now you are changing the topic. Your false claim was that "They all
>> say that HHH must report on the behavior of direct execution of DDD()
> 
> Verified fact.

How was verified that all and not just some of them said what you
claim they all said?

-- 
Mikko