Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 13:03:24 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <100cb9c$uek4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 12:03:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="db593b51986ab1c7ad0e4311e24c5f65";
	logging-data="998020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Sx/2T2KHRTY8IlOQavDOi"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eu3gIA8Hz1stQGOr/sLRZjLFJ5o=
Bytes: 1914

On 2025-05-18 00:11:22 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> 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:
> whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes no
> difference:

You so far you are right. But that is not what Olcott says: he claims
that HHH may correclty report "does not halt" when the actual input
specifies a halting computation.

> we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as non-
> halting.

That infinte recursion is not in the input as can be proven by
an execution of the program specified by the input:

in main (void) {
  output("Asking HHH.");
  if (HHH(DDD)) {
    output("HHH says DDD halts.");
  } else {
    output("HHH says DDD does not halt.");
  }
  output("Trying DDD.");
  DDD();
  output("DDD has halted.");
}

There are functions for output in Olcott's library.

Olcott is wrong as shown many times. You are wrong about Olcott.

-- 
Mikko