Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:02:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <103op4b$rq7e$4@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> <103ga9l$2l4he$1@dont-email.me>
 <103gvur$2q86f$2@dont-email.me> <103j359$3bke5$1@dont-email.me>
 <103n9i8$e9sp$2@dont-email.me> <103oad3$oscg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:02:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c5709712fc7771c125bfe4c60a9c3b1";
	logging-data="911598"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193cZWVHWgT51l8ge1ZwkRM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YNIwyDwebVXvgvCHYoxC4iYY7OI=
In-Reply-To: <103oad3$oscg$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250628-2, 6/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/28/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.jun.2025 om 01:30 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/26/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>> None of the code in HHH can possibly cause DDD correctly
>>>> simulated by HHH to reach its own simulated "return" statement.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly, that is the bug.
>>>
>>
>> Recursive emulation is only a tiny bit more complicated
>> than recursion yet no one here seems to have a clue.
>> Do you know what recursion is?
>> (If you don't that would explain a lot)
> As usual irrelevant claims without evidence. No rebuttal.

Ah so you don't know what recursion is.

> HHH has a bug that makes that it does not recognise the halting 
> behaviour of the program specified in the input.

If you don't even know what recursion is then
you are totally unqualified to review these things.

> Even a beginner can see 
> that the input is a pointer to code, including the code to abort and 
> halt. But HHH is programmed to ignore the conditional branch 
> instructions, when simulating itself, so it thinks that there is an 
> infinite loop when there are only a finite number of recursions.
> But Olcott does not understand that not all recursions are infinite.

When the measure is whether or not DDD correctly
simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own "return"
instruction final halt state nothing inside HHH can
possibly have any effect on this.

That you don't know this proves that you are unqualified
to review my work.

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