Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:43:52 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <103r5da$2due$3@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me>
 <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h07f$2q86f$3@dont-email.me> <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me>
 <103l67e$3ul4b$1@dont-email.me> <103legd$bn2$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m9n1$6dce$4@dont-email.me> <103oa6b$oscg$1@dont-email.me>
 <103onuv$rq7e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 10:43:55 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a14eb4a77a6d16043b7e653fcaa784c1";
	logging-data="79822"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qCynZ36pgFeJHDg39UcYY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SVU38cMIkNTh/ERgpFNFQq56XGk=
In-Reply-To: <103onuv$rq7e$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 28.jun.2025 om 14:42 schreef olcott:
> On 6/28/2025 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.jun.2025 om 16:26 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>
>>>>>> In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
>>>>>> possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
>>>>>> halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
>>>>>> count as non-haltign.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting means reaching a final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> And non-halting means unlimited execution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
>>> final halt state. If it was not that way then smashing a
>>> computer with a sledge hammer would "prove" that an infinite
>>> loop halts.
> 
>> Not at all. The measure is unlimited execution.
> 
> counter-factual
> 
> *can't possibly reach final halt state*
> even if correctly simulated forever gets
> rid of the psychotic requirement to actually
> simulate it forever before we know that it
> does not halt.

Counter factual. Only in your dreams.

A correct simulation of exactly the same input by world-class simulators 
show that this input specifies a halting program. Therefore, the fact 
that HHH cannot reach that end is a failure of HHH, not a property of 
the input.
There is no need to simulate forever, because the simulation would halt 
naturally one cycle later, as proven by direct execution and world-class 
simulators.
To think that simulating forever is required is indeed psychotic. No-one 
else but Olcott thinks that it is required.