Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:45:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <101f86e$173m3$3@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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> <101ekn7$12895$3@dont-email.me>
 <101f82c$173bb$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 17:45:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1adda083d038348e190ff3433969ba4";
	logging-data="1281731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UCPVTGb8anVHshOAFiITG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hGfyqH0QNy2i85FUd9TymCme00I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101f82c$173bb$6@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/31/2025 5:12 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> That is the same thing as saying that you never have
> to eat because you know that after you eat you will
> no longer be hungry.
> 
> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH before it has
> been aborted is different than the behavior of DDD
> emulated by HHH1 after HHH has already aborted its DDD.
> 
> These differences have always been there for three years
> and everyone here thinks that they can just assume them away.
> 
> 


The emulation performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the 
point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:


On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.