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 13:12:01 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <100cbph$ui7a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4> <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me> <SraWP.289779$o31.223364@fx04.ams4> <100bdv2$loat$1@dont-email.me> <100bii9$qanf$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 12:12:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="db593b51986ab1c7ad0e4311e24c5f65";
	logging-data="1001706"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XsipKqT0Bbizy/TwquxEk"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z1fsbwRKYRujmVpQXNaQ3PIDAF8=
Bytes: 3899

On 2025-05-18 03:01:29 +0000, olcott said:

> 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

We understand straw man fallacy. It is unlikely to work on people who
understand it. You have tried it many times but has it ever worked?

-- 
Mikko