Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 21:29:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vqqrj4$29meg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqqq1n$29buv$1@dont-email.me> <vqqqs7$28lh2$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:29:57 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da28212957632e1bc35b68d4fbc88507";
	logging-data="2415056"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZdChNWImEIIEZE7QpQwXN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:efel+3TsNFWpnOXSptoHOlO9gII=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vqqqs7$28lh2$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250311-4, 3/11/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3326

On 3/11/2025 9:17 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/03/2025 02:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2025 8:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>> simulated steps.
>>>
>>> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't 
>>> terminate. Look up "infinite".
>>>
>>
>> *It was dishonest of you to remove this context*
> 
> No, it wasn't.
> 
> 
>> On 3/11/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>  > (Even though it demonstrably DOES halt if not
>>  > aborted and simulated further.
>>
>> That statement is stupidly false.
>>
>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. 
>>
>> No you have this WRONG.
> 
> No, you do. It's stipulated.
> 
>>
>> My WHOLE effort has been to correctly determine the
>> halt status of the conventional halting problem proof's
>> "impossible" input.
> 
> Then you're not addressing the conventional halting problem. You're 
> addressing an infinitesimally small non-problem. The conventional 
> halting problem requires a universal decision-maker that /works/ 
> universally in finite time. Yours clearly doesn't.
> 
>>
>> This by itself is better than anyone else has ever done
>> with this proof since it was first presented 89 years ago.
> 
> Well, no, it isn't. 

The lack of a counter-example sufficiently proves that you
have no basis for *the exact meaning of my specific claim*

> But why not just stipulate that you're a genius? 
> Nobody can argue then, right? Why not stipulate yourself a Fields Medal 
> while you're at it?
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer