Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 19:57:17 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <101cv2d$ikgf$6@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>
 <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me>
 <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
 <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me> <101cjjo$hqle$2@dont-email.me>
 <101cmga$imoa$1@dont-email.me> <101cohp$ikgf$4@dont-email.me>
 <101cppa$j97s$1@dont-email.me> <101cqs1$j925$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me> <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 20:57:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98821b3aa39a3256f5c8c5614ee01f20";
	logging-data="610831"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yn4t11pQBSjlZNWmBXr9sLh1euOIBe2xGg7ExebRlpA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CXueIvNNMj24g/hOR381gMXTdtM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me>

On 30/05/2025 19:48, dbush wrote:
> On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/30/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>>>
>>> +++++
>>> Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, 
>>> that we can invent a machine <D- which, when supplied with the 
>>> S.D of any computing machine i l will test this S.D and if i l 
>>> is circular will mark the S.D with the symbol "u" and if it is 
>>> circle-free will mark it with " s ".
>>> +++++
>>>
>>> By "the S.D. of any computing machine" he means the 'standard 
>>> description' of >>>>any<<<< Turing machine.
>>>
>>> HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing 
>>> whatsoever on the Turing proof.
>>>
>>
>> It is a verified fact that

HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing whatsoever 
on the Turing proof.

> i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code 
> of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and the 
> fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level.
> 
>> does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> 
> False, as algorithm HHH, which is what the input describes / 
> specifies, halts when executed directly or when simulated by UTM.

It doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant to Turing's proof. 
Olcott is just copy-pasting a lot of hot air. If he had anything 
important to say he'd have said it by now, and I really don't 
think he has.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within