Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What. A. Slog.
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 09:48:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <1002agb$2i4bk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:48:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2691444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/C+YldlcmiypkMTMuM9xZc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ggaoapOU82wuluul3RfvjOe8wAE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-2, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/14/2025 2:11 AM, vallor wrote:
> Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts.  Huboy,
> what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
> away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
> 
> I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
> Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
> Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
> point out three things:
> 
> a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
> input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
> to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
> simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

That is counter-factual. DDD correctly simulated by HHH
*would never stop running unless aborted*

> 
> b) Mr. Olcott appears to agree with Turing at this point, but may
> be unwilling to abandon the work he's spent so much time on.
> 
> c) (I am not a doctor.)  After seeing Mr. Olcott's representations
> of Professor Sipser's words, as well as the way he edits his posts,
> as well as the way he ignores clear refutation, my personal,
> non-professional, opinion is that he's more deluded than
> outright dishonest.  Hopefully he can avoid the latter in the future.
> 

It turns out that rhetoric does not really count as rebuttal.
Neither does changing my words and rebutting these changed words.

> Finally, I agree with what others have posted:  this stuff doesn't belong
> in comp.lang.c.  Mr. Olcott:  you actually have a few experts _and_
> authorities in the C language reading you in this group. 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

All of those "experts" say that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH will reach its "return" statement.
Any novice C programmer can see that this is not true.

>  Perhaps
> you should follow their suggestions?  (Since the description of your
> algorithms are expressed in C, you might want to concentrate on that,
> rather than the compilers assembler language output.)
> 


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