Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:12:55 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <101ekn7$12895$3@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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>
 <101ej5j$125mj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="905da0b345d854e05eca9f089cec3db4";
	logging-data="1122597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/F4+oZmKYXtoUgkt2+uSCpCUgl0chdpeXDXMic+2sZfg=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vwBFGcVMAiKVibgUtSFrMk2Gn/Y=
In-Reply-To: <101ej5j$125mj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2899

On 31/05/2025 10:46, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-30 18:40:01 +0000, olcott said:

<snip>

>>
>> to HHH(DDD)
>> does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> 
> No, it is not. Nobody has seen the input to HHH(DDD) running 
> forever.
> So the "non-halting" is not a verified fact.


The unfailingly patient Mike Terry will forgive me if I have 
remembered him incorrectly, but I seem to recall... wait... I can 
quote him:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just as a reminder I'll repeat the final outcome of all this:

-  PO's H does decide NEVER_HALTS for TM H^ running with input <H^>.
-  PO's H^ running with input <H^> in fact halts, in line with 
Linz logic (b) above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

....so it halts. End of, one would think.


-- 
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