1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Flaw in Olcott's Thinking

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 12 18:42:57 2025
    Flaw In Olcott's Thinking

    Even if we assume that Olcott's HHH(DD) result of non-halting due to the
    albeit "aborted" infinite regress is correct it doesn't help Olcott as
    DD() will still do the opposite (halt) proving that HHH is not a halt
    decider and confirming the validity of the Halting Problem proofs.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 12 21:55:01 2025
    On 12/08/2025 21:13, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    So are you the Quora guy?
    I will ask you this 10,000 times until you answer.

    Creepy, or what?

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 12 21:09:24 2025
    On 8/12/25 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Flaw In Olcott's Thinking

    Even if we assume that Olcott's HHH(DD) result of non-halting due to the
    albeit "aborted" infinite regress is correct it doesn't help Olcott as
    DD() will still do the opposite (halt) proving that HHH is not a halt
    decider and confirming the validity of the Halting Problem proofs.

    /Flibble

    Yes it does because non-inputs such as the
    directly executed DD() have never been in
    the domain of any halt decider.


    Sure they have, as that is what the problem states.

    It seems your "proof" just isn't in the domain of computation theory,
    but just part of your POOPS, and thus meaningless to the halting problem.

    All you have done is proven you don't understand how logic works, or the fundamental rules of it, as you just ignore them. This makes you just a
    stupid and ignorant pathological liar with no regard for the truth or
    rules of what he talk about.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 12 21:11:51 2025
    On 8/12/25 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:27 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 3:23 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:15 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:56 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Flaw In Olcott's Thinking

    Even if we assume that Olcott's HHH(DD) result of non-halting
    due to the
    albeit "aborted" infinite regress is correct it doesn't help
    Olcott as
    DD() will still do the opposite (halt) proving that HHH is not a >>>>>>>> halt
    decider and confirming the validity of the Halting Problem proofs. >>>>>>>>
    /Flibble

    Yes it does because non-inputs such as the
    directly executed DD() have never been in
    the domain of any halt decider.


    Just like Turing machines can't do arithmetic
    This point has already been fully addressed.

    Then you agree that Turing machines can take a description of an
    algorithm to decide on the algorithm just like Turing machines can
    take a description of a number to decide on a number, and therefore
    Turing machines are in the domain of Turing machines via a description. >>>
    Except in the case where DD correctly simulated by HHH
    specifies different behavior than DD().

    But algorithm HHH doesn't do a correct simulation of algorithm DD, so
    that case doesn't exist.

    Only because your are using a definition of
    correct simulation that requires stupidly
    disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.


    No it doesn't, your simulation does.

    Remember, the last part of EVERY x86 instructions specification, as part
    of the general rules, is that it is always followed by the next
    instruction in sequence, unless the description SPECIFICALLY states
    otherwise, which it doesn't here.

    Thus, you are just showing yourself to be so stupid you don't understand
    that you don't know what you are talking about.

    So are you the Quora guy?
    I will ask you this 10,000 times until you answer.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 12 21:14:09 2025
    On 8/12/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 3:28 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:27 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 3:23 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:15 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:56 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Flaw In Olcott's Thinking

    Even if we assume that Olcott's HHH(DD) result of non-halting >>>>>>>>>> due to the
    albeit "aborted" infinite regress is correct it doesn't help >>>>>>>>>> Olcott as
    DD() will still do the opposite (halt) proving that HHH is not >>>>>>>>>> a halt
    decider and confirming the validity of the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>> proofs.

    /Flibble

    Yes it does because non-inputs such as the
    directly executed DD() have never been in
    the domain of any halt decider.


    Just like Turing machines can't do arithmetic
    This point has already been fully addressed.

    Then you agree that Turing machines can take a description of an
    algorithm to decide on the algorithm just like Turing machines can >>>>>> take a description of a number to decide on a number, and
    therefore Turing machines are in the domain of Turing machines via >>>>>> a description.

    Except in the case where DD correctly simulated by HHH
    specifies different behavior than DD().

    But algorithm HHH doesn't do a correct simulation of algorithm DD,
    so that case doesn't exist.

    Only because your are using a definition of
    correct simulation that requires stupidly
    disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.

    UTM by definition simulates according to the semantics of the x86
    language.

    An aborted simulation violates the semantics of the x86 language.

    Only if you are trying to simulate a non-terminating
    input to its non-existent conclusion otherwise a
    correct simulation of N instructions *IS* a
    correct simulation of N instructions.


    Nope, where are you seeing the exemption you are trying to envoke?

    It seems to come out of the dark murkiness of the lies in your mind, not anything factual.

    SOrry, all you are doing is proving that you don't understand the nature
    of truth or logic, and nothing you say actually has any meaning, as you
    have reserved the right to use words with any meaning you want to give them.

    The problem is, logic and reality don't give you that right, and you are
    paying the consequences.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)