Path: 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 correct
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 22:01:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <100bii9$qanf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4> <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <SraWP.289779$o31.223364@fx04.ams4> <100bdv2$loat$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 05:01:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95cd7ab4fbc269222bd094bf289b9f2a";
	logging-data="862959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/HhbHBMG/9ZYtExj+naND"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ug0qO/BNJy6qTY1n1EVIOCXboqA=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250517-6, 5/17/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100bdv2$loat$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/17/2025 8:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 18/05/2025 02:10, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:06:43 +0100, 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, 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to
>>> completion.  It aborts, and then decides non-halting.  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.
>>
>> No, halting the simulation is NOT THE SAME as a halting result of HALTING
>> for what is being simulated.  I have changed the subject title back, you
>> jackass.
> 
> Where did I say it was the same?  /YOU/ said above that PO's SHD should 
> decide *as if* the simulation was run to completion.  [your 
> highlighting].  If DD is simulated to completion it halts, so by your 
> logic his SHD should decide halting.  Instead it decides neverhalts.
> 
> Mike.
> 

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

*DDD simulated by HHH HAS NO COMPLETION*

*DDD simulated by HHH1 IS THE STRAWMAN FALLACY*
changing the words of the argument and then
rebutting these changed words.

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

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