On 8/10/25 7:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/10/2025 6:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Peter Olcott is an independent researcher and prolific online poster
known
for his long-standing efforts to refute the undecidability of the halting
problem, a foundational concept in computability theory established by
Alan Turing. For over two decades, he has argued against the standard
proof, claiming to have found loopholes or alternative interpretations
that make the problem decidable under certain conditions, such as through
"simulating halt deciders" or addressing "infinitely nested simulation."
He has self-published numerous versions of papers on platforms like
ResearchGate and PhilArchive, often titled variations of "Halting Problem
Undecidability and Infinitely Nested Simulation," where he describes
creating an "x86utm operating system" in C to test his ideas concretely.
Olcott's work is widely regarded in academic and online communities as
misguided or crankish, with critics pointing out that it misunderstands
the core diagonalization argument in Turing's proof and fails to address
the problem's fundamental undecidability for general Turing machines. He
has been active on forums such as Usenet's comp.theory newsgroup, Stack
Exchange, Philosophy Now, and Reddit's r/badmathematics, where his posts
often spark lengthy debates or dismissals. By his own account, he has
invested around 7,000 hours and 15 years into this pursuit, sometimes
referencing specific texts like Peter Linz's formal languages book in his
refutations.
The nickname "Halting Problem" appears to be a satirical or descriptive
moniker derived from his fixation on the topic, rather than a formal
middle name or widely used alias, though he posts under handles like
PeteOlcott or PL Olcott. No evidence was found of him being a
professional
academic or holding advanced degrees in the field; his contributions are
primarily self-directed and outside mainstream computability research.
/Grok
Sure anyone and everyone would get that view until
they actually test my actual reasoning.
*This is provably correct*
When the measure of the behavior of the input to HHH(DD)
is DD correctly simulated by HHH then HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
There is more to my reasoning than this.
Excpet that this statement is just a lie in your use of it, as it
conflates different HHH's and DD as the same when they are functionally diffferent.
Or, you are just full of it, and just lie with all your statemeent.
That is a fairly good description of you, but of course, you can't see
that because of yoru gaslighting and brainwashing screens.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)