From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

D simulated by H measures the semantic property
of the actual input as opposed to and contrast
with the semantic property of a non-input. H and
H1 are identical except that D does not call H1.

We can tell an input from a non-input because an
input is an argument to the function H.

D.input_to_H
specifies different behavior than
D.input_to_H1.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

H simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
until H sees this repeating pattern
Then H returns 0;

H1 simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
then H(D) returns 0 to caller D
then H1 returns 1;

Imagine
H and H1 are simulating termination
analyzers anchored in a C interpreter
that takes a finite string input

H can recognize a call to itself in
its input. The whole input is the
text of the function D. The executable
interpreters are named H.exe and H1.exe.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/31/2025 11:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/30/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:

D simulated by H measures the semantic property
of the actual input as opposed to and contrast
with the semantic property of a non-input. H and
H1 are identical except that D does not call H1.

No, it doesn't.

Semantic Properties are OBJECTIVE, and thus do not depend on who they
are being asked.

Unless you give this a fair review and not the usual
"I am wrong no matter what I say" I may never speak to
you again. This is the first time I spoke to you in
many months so you know that I mean it.

It turns out that this point is the key element
of the theory of computation that I have overturned.

Even the LLMs freaked out over this and just would
not believe me until after I proved it.

Unlike people LLMs are not so full of themselves
that they utterly will not face the actual facts.

The fact that
(a) Deciders only compute the mapping from the behavior
that their input actually specifies

(b) A correct way to measure the behavior that their
input actually specifies is D simulated by H

(c) Proves that H(D)==0 is correct and

(d) The requirement for H to report on anything else
has always been a category error out-of-scope for
Turing machine deciders since the beginning of the
halting problem back in 1936.

Without my innovation of a simulating halt decider
back in 2016 there was no basis to see the difference
between the behavior that the input specifies as different
than the behavior of the direct execution.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

*Bottom line is this crucial verified fact*
D simulated by H according to the semantics of C
programming language (until H sees the repeating
pattern) does enable H to report that its simulated
input cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement final halt state.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2