#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef int (*ptr)();

int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{ x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
return 1;
}

// Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
int P(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
}

int main(void)
{ H(P, P);
}

Computation that halts
a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
(Linz:1990:234)

PSR set: Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
Every H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls this same H(P,P)
and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or does not abort its
input P never reaches its last instruction.

PSR subset: Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for the
whole PSR set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the
execution or simulation of its input then we know that for this entire
PSR subset the input to H(P,P) never halts and H(P,P) halts.

When int main(void) { P(P); } is invoked on H/P elements of the above
PSR subset, then we have cases where the input to H(P,P) never halts and
P(P) halts. The fact that the input to H(P,P) never halts is not
contradicted by the fact that P(P) halts.

Decidable_PSR subset: The subset of the PSR subset where H returns 0 on
the basis that H correctly detects that P specifies infinite recursion
defines the decidable domain of function H.

Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}.
Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
configurations.
H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
its final state.

The above H could detect that its simulated P is calling H(P,P) with the
same parameters that it was called with, thus specifying infinite
recursion.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2)

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/21 4:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
>
> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
> {
>   x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
>   return 1;
> }
>
> // Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
> // and Strachey(1965) P
> int P(ptr x)
> {
>   H(x, x);
>   return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
>   H(P, P);
> }
>
> Computation that halts
> a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
> (Linz:1990:234)
>
> PSR set: Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
> Every H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls this same H(P,P)
> and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or does not abort its
> input P never reaches its last instruction.

LIE.

The Computation P DOES reach its final instruction for EVERY H that
returns from H(P,P).

What you actually seem to be saying is that the computation of H never
simulates P far enough to reach that state.

If H NEVER aborts its simulation, this would prove that its input is
non-halting (but these H never answer H(P,P) so fail to be deciders),
but if H aborts its simulation, then the failure to reach the end
becomes inconclusive on the actual state of the actual computation.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of these words.

You even are willing to admit that P(P) does halt. You just don't
understand, or are just lying, that this IS the input to H.

>
> PSR subset: Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for the
> whole PSR set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the
> execution or simulation of its input then we know that for this entire
> PSR subset the input to H(P,P) never halts and H(P,P) halts.

LIE. As pointed above, the input to H(P,P) will halt for ANY H that
returns a value. Thus the subset of these computaiton that return are
deciders, but incorrect as halting deciders.

>
> When int main(void) { P(P); } is invoked on H/P elements of the above
> PSR subset, then we have cases where the input to H(P,P) never halts and
> P(P) halts. The fact that the input to H(P,P) never halts is not
> contradicted by the fact that P(P) halts.

LIE.

The input to H(P,P) IS (BY DEFINITION) P(P).

>
> Decidable_PSR subset: The subset of the PSR subset where H returns 0 on
> the basis that H correctly detects that P specifies infinite recursion
> defines the decidable domain of function H.

LIE.

>
> Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}.
> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
> configurations.
> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
> its final state.
>

LIE.

> The above H could detect that its simulated P is calling H(P,P) with the
> same parameters that it was called with, thus specifying infinite
> recursion.

LIE

>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2)
>
>

Remember what happens to those who lie,

Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster than
daily.

This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are putting
into your logic.

Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic, rather
than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you statement to see if
you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to excuse your error,
without even attempting to address the fundamental flaws in your arguement.

This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are saying.

Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the terms
you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.

Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is does
a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.

If your H(P,P) is NOT asking about what the independent Computation P(P)
does, then your problem has been setup wrong. PERIOD.

If you think that the input to H(P,P) is refering to the internal
operation of H, then you have setup your problem WRONG, and have lost
your base initial question.

It doesn't matter how many traces and explainations or what ever you
present for what you have written, if in the end, the answer that H
gives is NOT what the behavior is of the independent computation P(P)
does, for the P built on the H that is trying to decide it, then the
problem has just been setup wrong, and you LIE when you claim you have
done it by the rules.

On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster than
> daily.
>
> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are putting
> into your logic.
>

Translating this
halt decider (Olcott 2021) A halt decider accepts or rejects inputs on
the basis of the actual behavior of the direct execution or simulation
of these inputs.

A correct halt decider must base its halt status decision on:
(a) the actual sequence of instruction steps
(b) that are actually specified by
(c) an actual direct execution or
(d) actual correct simulation of
(e) the actual input.
If you get rid of any of the "actuals" the halt decider cannot be relied
on as correct.

Into this
Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
configurations.
H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
its final state.

Is the key breakthrough in the last 24 hours.

You didn't notice this because you begin with the assumption that I am
wrong and then spout off rebuttals without ever looking at what I said.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster than
> daily.
>
> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are putting
> into your logic.
>
> Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic, rather
> than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you statement to see if
> you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to excuse your error,
> without even attempting to address the fundamental flaws in your arguement.
>
> This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are saying.
>
> Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
> problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the terms
> you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
>
>
> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is does
> a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.
>

When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
domain of function H

YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL

halt decider (Olcott 2021)
Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
configurations.
H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
its final state.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/21 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
>> than daily.
>>
>> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
>> putting into your logic.
>>
>
> Translating this
> halt decider (Olcott 2021) A halt decider accepts or rejects inputs on
> the basis of the actual behavior of the direct execution or simulation
> of these inputs.
>
> A correct halt decider must base its halt status decision on:
> (a) the actual sequence of instruction steps
> (b) that are actually specified by
> (c) an actual direct execution or
> (d) actual correct simulation of
> (e) the actual input.
> If you get rid of any of the "actuals" the halt decider cannot be relied
> on as correct.

So, by the problem requirements, the input to H MUST BE the descruption
of the computation P(P) where P is defined by the Linz transformation H^
of the H doing the descision.

If it isn't then YOU have setup the problem incorrectly.

The input to H appears to be the x86 code for the function P, which
appears to be right.

We KNOW that if H(P,P) returns 0 as claimed, then the ACTUAL DIRECT
EXECUTION of this P(P) will perform the following sequence of steps:

1) Enter P(P)

2) Call H(P,P)

3( [your have failed to show the actual definition of the H that is part
of P, but we know from the preconditions that it will do 'something' and
after a finite amount of time return the value 0]

4) P receives that value of 0

5) P Returns.

this is (a) the actual sequence of instruction steps
(b) that have been actuall specified (or YOU made an error)
(c) showing the 'trace' of an ACTUAL EXECTION
(e) of the ACTUAL INPUT.

What it isn't is the trace that H incorrectly generates inside itself,
which seemes to be the error you make, that trace aborts before it
finishes, and thus omits the requirement of being an ACTUAL DIRECT
EXECUTION or CORRECT SIMULATION.

YOUR FAIL.

>
> Into this
> Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
> configurations.
> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
> its final state.

Except we have show that when 'E' is P(P) that DOES reach the halting
state but H says it doesn't, thus H has FAILED.

>
> Is the key breakthrough in the last 24 hours.
>
> You didn't notice this because you begin with the assumption that I am
> wrong and then spout off rebuttals without ever looking at what I said.
>

No, you seem to be too dumb to understand what you are saying.

On 11/20/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
>> than daily.
>>
>> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
>> putting into your logic.
>>
>> Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic, rather
>> than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you statement to see
>> if you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to excuse your error,
>> without even attempting to address the fundamental flaws in your
>> arguement.
>>
>> This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are
>> saying.
>>
>> Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
>> problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the
>> terms you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
>>
>>
>> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is
>> does a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.
>>
>
> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
> domain of function H
>
> YOU FAIL
> YOU FAIL
> YOU FAIL
> YOU FAIL

You Lie, I did it, YOU FAIL.

If the domain of H is NOT representations of Computation then you are
not talking about a Halt Decider, and thus are one of the biggest liars
on the planet.

>
> halt decider (Olcott 2021)
> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
> configurations.
> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
> its final state.
>
>
>

On 11/20/2021 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/20/21 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Into this
>> Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
>> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
>> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
>> configurations.
>> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E
>> reaches its final state.
>
> Except we have show that when 'E' is P(P)

On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of
> a Halt Decider is does a given computation, when >
> run independently Halt or not when run.

When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
domain of function H

YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL

halt decider (Olcott 2021)
Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of configurations.
H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
its final state.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/2021 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/20/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
>>> than daily.
>>>
>>> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
>>> putting into your logic.
>>>
>>> Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic, rather
>>> than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you statement to see
>>> if you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to excuse your error,
>>> without even attempting to address the fundamental flaws in your
>>> arguement.
>>>
>>> This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are
>>> saying.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
>>> problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the
>>> terms you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is
>>> does a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.
>>>
>>
>> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
>> domain of function H
>>
>> YOU FAIL
>> YOU FAIL
>> YOU FAIL
>> YOU FAIL
>
> You Lie, I did it, YOU FAIL.
>
> If the domain of H is NOT representations of Computation then you are
> not talking about a Halt Decider, and thus are one of the biggest liars
> on the planet.

There is no mathematically precise way to say this:
> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a
> Halt Decider is does a given computation, when run
> independently Halt or not when run.

This is mathematically precise:
a specified sequence of configurations reaches the halt state of this
sequence (or not).

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/21 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/20/21 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> Into this
>>> Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
>>> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
>>> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
>>> configurations.
>>> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E
>>> reaches its final state.
>>
>> Except we have show that when 'E' is P(P)
>
> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of
> > a Halt Decider is does a given computation, when >
> > run independently Halt or not when run.
>
> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
> domain of function H
>
> YOU FAIL
> YOU FAIL
> YOU FAIL

LIE. See other messages.

YOU FAIL.

>
> halt decider (Olcott 2021)
> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
> configurations.
> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E reaches
> its final state.
>
>
>
>

On 11/20/21 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/20/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
>>>> than daily.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
>>>> putting into your logic.
>>>>
>>>> Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic, rather
>>>> than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you statement to
>>>> see if you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to excuse your
>>>> error, without even attempting to address the fundamental flaws in
>>>> your arguement.
>>>>
>>>> This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are
>>>> saying.
>>>>
>>>> Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
>>>> problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the
>>>> terms you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is
>>>> does a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
>>> domain of function H
>>>
>>> YOU FAIL
>>> YOU FAIL
>>> YOU FAIL
>>> YOU FAIL
>>
>> You Lie, I did it, YOU FAIL.
>>
>> If the domain of H is NOT representations of Computation then you are
>> not talking about a Halt Decider, and thus are one of the biggest
>> liars on the planet.
>
> There is no mathematically precise way to say this:
> > Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a
> > Halt Decider is does a given computation, when run
> > independently Halt or not when run.

What is mathematically imprecise about that?

Computation P(I) will absolutely EITHER reach a halting state in some
finite number of steps N, or it will NEVER reach a halting state in an
unbounded number of steps.

Is the problem that you don't understand the concept of unbounded
numbers or infinities?

If so, Mathematics is NOT a field you should be working in.

>
> This is mathematically precise:
> a specified sequence of configurations reaches the halt state of this
> sequence (or not).
>
>

But that isn't the definition of Halting.

Unless the 'specified sequence of configurations' is a UTM applied to
the input.

That just shows you are not talking about the halting problem because
you just don't understand what halting is!

Its hard to be convincing about proofs based on 'the meaning of words',
when you admit that you just don't understand the meaning of a
fundamental word in the topic.

On 11/20/2021 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/20/21 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2021 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/20/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
>>>>> than daily.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
>>>>> putting into your logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic,
>>>>> rather than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you
>>>>> statement to see if you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to
>>>>> excuse your error, without even attempting to address the
>>>>> fundamental flaws in your arguement.
>>>>>
>>>>> This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are
>>>>> saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
>>>>> problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the
>>>>> terms you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is
>>>>> does a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
>>>> domain of function H
>>>>
>>>> YOU FAIL
>>>> YOU FAIL
>>>> YOU FAIL
>>>> YOU FAIL
>>>
>>> You Lie, I did it, YOU FAIL.
>>>
>>> If the domain of H is NOT representations of Computation then you are
>>> not talking about a Halt Decider, and thus are one of the biggest
>>> liars on the planet.
>>
>> There is no mathematically precise way to say this:
>>  > Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a
>>  > Halt Decider is does a given computation, when run
>>  > independently Halt or not when run.
>
> What is mathematically imprecise about that?
>
> Computation P(I) will absolutely EITHER reach a halting state in some
> finite number of steps N, or it will NEVER reach a halting state in an
> unbounded number of steps.
>

How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to base
its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations specified by
(P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on P(I) [when run
independently] ???

> Is the problem that you don't understand the concept of unbounded
> numbers or infinities?
>
> If so, Mathematics is NOT a field you should be working in.
>
>>
>> This is mathematically precise:
>> a specified sequence of configurations reaches the halt state of this
>> sequence (or not).
>>
>>
>
> But that isn't the definition of Halting.
>
> Unless the 'specified sequence of configurations' is a UTM applied to
> the input.
>
> That just shows you are not talking about the halting problem because
> you just don't understand what halting is!
>
> Its hard to be convincing about proofs based on 'the meaning of words',
> when you admit that you just don't understand the meaning of a
> fundamental word in the topic.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 21/11/2021 00:05, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/20/21 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2021 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/20/21 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> Into this
>>>> Halt decider (Olcott 2021)
>>>> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
>>>> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
>>>> configurations.
>>>> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E
>>>> reaches its final state.
>>>
>>> Except we have show that when 'E' is P(P)
>>
>> On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of
>>  > a Halt Decider is does a given computation, when >
>>  > run independently Halt or not when run.
>>
>> When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
>> domain of function H
>>
>> YOU FAIL
>> YOU FAIL
>> YOU FAIL
>
> LIE. See other messages.
>
> YOU FAIL.

Dude! You need to add ".. AND NO RETURNS" or the thread will be going
nowhere!

Mike.

>
>>
>> halt decider (Olcott 2021)
>> Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
>> Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of
>> configurations.
>> H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not E
>> reaches its final state.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On 11/20/21 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to base
> its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations specified by
> (P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on P(I) [when run
> independently] ???
>

Your the one who is designing H, that's your problem.

There is no problems for the verifier to run the two machines and
compare the results, since P(P) halts in a similar time as H(P,P) needs
to return an answer.

On 11/20/2021 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/20/21 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to base
>> its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations specified
>> by (P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on P(I) [when
>> run independently] ???
>>
>
> Your the one who is designing H, that's your problem.
>
> There is no problems for the verifier to run the two machines and
> compare the results, since P(P) halts in a similar time as H(P,P) needs
> to return an answer.

For mathematical function H:
specified sequences of configurations reach their final state or not

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/21 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/20/21 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to
>>> base its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations
>>> specified by (P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on
>>> P(I) [when run independently] ???
>>>
>>
>> Your the one who is designing H, that's your problem.
>>
>> There is no problems for the verifier to run the two machines and
>> compare the results, since P(P) halts in a similar time as H(P,P)
>> needs to return an answer.
>
> For mathematical function H:
> specified sequences of configurations reach their final state or not
>

(Same answer for different comments, shows how poorly you read).

The right answer is based on the behavior of the actual computation.

If you compute the wrong answer, because you are using the wrong
critera, you are still wrong.