Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input
 according to this specification
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 17:16:09 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <100316p$2mbr6$10@dont-email.me>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me> <1002l5k$2ke1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me> <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:16:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hov2HVfREFK09faV7QDbE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uRg0y9GV1LqPfRWHXgQueTX1AVY=
In-Reply-To: <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/14/2025 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2025 08:11, 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.
>>>
>>> Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and 
>>> that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are bugs, 
>>> but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>>>
>> Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug (rather 
>> than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's 
>> specification. 
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>      would never stop running unless aborted then
> 
And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your 
interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
provided that he did not:

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.