Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Peter Olcott is proven correct by honest reviewers
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 21:08:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <100bfem$ppkh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4> <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 04:08:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95cd7ab4fbc269222bd094bf289b9f2a";
	logging-data="845457"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YGSSt1kDErqYop1ecdxjY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vWdfbgn7Df+u7hdc1AN8npF5DY0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4219

On 5/17/2025 8:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a
>> correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:
> 
> Right.  If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM 
> simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input halts.  
> This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones, whatever 
> they are exactly.
> 
> PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation.  If that 
> DD is simulated to completion it halts, 

Deceptive wording.
DDD simulated by HHH has no completion.

> so that is what his SHD needs to 
> report.  PO has verified this directly, and has published the traces 
> showing DD halting when simulated to completion.
> 

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

When I say that
*DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt*
    rebutting this with
*DDD simulated by HHH1 halts*
    is the strawman fallacy:

*Strawman Fallacy*
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument
with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the
position of the argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy

Simple example of *Strawman Fallacy*
I say that mangoes are a kind of fruit
and you say that I am wrong potatoes
are not a kind of fruit.

>> whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes no
>> difference: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as 
>> non-
>> halting.
> 
> Eh?  PO does have a couple of SHDs that simulate his DD to completion, 
> and they all show DD halting!  There's no infinite recursion, only some 
> level of finite recursive simulation.
> 

Gullible fools might have never heard of the strawman
fallacy and would consider any mere rhetoric that never
addresses the actual point as a valid rebuttal.

> PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to 
> completion.  It aborts, and then decides non-halting. 

Likewise with your own example
Your SHD never simulates its infinite loop to completion
because non-terminating inputs NEVER COMPLETE.

> That's the 
> reverse of what you said in the first paragraph.  So your thread title 
> is misleading - PO is actually *incorrect*.  I've corrected the title to 
> avoid confusion.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 

<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

Because it is true that DDD simulated by HHH, the directly
executed DDD() and every function that HHH calls would
never stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD, HHH is correct
by the above criteria to abort and reject DDD.

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