Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>
>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a part of a
>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that "That
>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more evidence
>> to support his claim.
>>
> 
> His halt decider did not look at its input.

Nor is it required to.  All it needs to do is map inputs to outputs.

> His input merely halted and did not call
> this halt decider. 

C function D doesn't need to call C function H.  Algorithm D used 
algorithm H as part of it, meaning algorithm D used the template to 
cause algorithm H to get the wrong answer for it.

> He used {} in a way that
> made no sense in C.
> 

It was a logical grouping so you can see how algorithm H is part of 
algorithm D.