Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 07:18:45 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <vveu05$odan$3@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
 <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me> <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me> <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me> <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me> <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me> <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me> <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me> <vvdo96$3lapa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdr87$3n3t4$1@dont-email.me> <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 08:18:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1de3d45e2783553e22f3c2216cb20b34";
	logging-data="800087"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wbMfojzRzPoEZc+zXGA6BWkPh/W1/mAHBnsrnr8sHLA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0YCs6EAZEKTJ2i7mYN4i1LGpG6E=
In-Reply-To: <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:

<snip>

>>>> HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point 
>>>> that HHH aborts, 
>>>
>>> When you trace through the actual steps you
>>> will see that this is counter-factual.
>>
>> No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of 
>> the two traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed 
>> IDENTICAL line for line up to the point where HHH decided to 
>> discontinue simulating. 
> 
> That is counter-factual.

People who can be bothered to check for themselves can check for 
themselves.

People who (like me) can't be arsed to go through the palaver of 
getting your code to work must instead decide who they think is 
more credible - you or Mike.

No contest.

If you want people to believe you, you've got your work cut out. 
Shooting emotionally from the hip (as you do) isn't as convincing 
as explaining precisely, logically, and dispassionately why 
you're right (as Mike does).

If I were to run a book right now on an independent investigation 
of the point in the trace where the two traces diverge, I could 
offer astronomical odds on your claim without any fear of losing 
a penny, but no matter what odds I offered on Mike I would 
quickly have to close the book on his claim or face bankruptcy.

It isn't just your logic that needs a lot off work; it's your 
presentation, too. You come across as someone who /believes/ 
you're right, but it's not enough to call down lightning on Mike 
the heretic; Mike manages to keep calm because he /knows/ he's 
right. There's a huge and important difference between the two.

There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's 
claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is 
counter-factual. Mike says he's posted evidence in support of his 
claim. I haven't seen it, but of the two of you I will 
unhesitatingly take his word for it rather than yours. Have you 
posted a rebuttal? If not, why not?

-- 
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