Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away
 with mere rhetoric
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:11:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v7m7cv$ogs3$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7m0af$n73h$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:11:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ab0c04790edcdbcdbb42536aede3135b";
	logging-data="803715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xzZulCte2z3zMNyzD+P+L"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M3TQyDsSguDYFhJjyrbRbdBixwY=
In-Reply-To: <v7m0af$n73h$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3942

Op 22.jul.2024 om 18:10 schreef olcott:
> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>
>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>
>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>> learning at all.
>>
>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> 
> 
> Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any 
> mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
> 
> We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design 
> requirement that HHH must itself halt.
> 
> We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the 
> infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.
> 

(a) is wrong as well.
Olcott fails to see the simple fact that when an aborting and halting 
HHH is simulated, no abort is needed.
Therefore, he is unable to see that (a) is wrong, when it aborts a 
halting program.
HHH when simulated by HHH runs on cycle behind its simulator, so, when 
the simulator aborts, the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go after 
which it would abort and halt. This proves that the abort by the 
simulating HHH was not needed.
Olcott fails to see an important difference between HHH that aborts and 
an HHH that does not abort. The HHH that aborts, halts and does not need 
the be aborted when simulated. Olcott is still dreaming of the HHH that 
does not abort, but such dreams are irrelevant for the HHH that aborts.

He tries to hide these simple facts by introducing the unneeded DDD.

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

Without DDD the same problem is present, which makes clear that the 
problem is in HHH, not in DDD.

The simple fact is that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.