1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Olcott's dishonesty

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 15 15:23:13 2025
    Peter Olcott has been discussing variations of this idea for years across forums like Usenet groups (e.g., comp.theory, comp.lang.c++),
    ResearchGate, and PhilArchive, often claiming to "refute" the Halting
    Problem proofs through simulating halt deciders (SHDs) that abort on
    infinite patterns. These claims are frequently met with criticism,
    including accusations of crankery, dishonesty, and dodging
    counterarguments.

    For instance:
    - In a 2022 thread, Olcott presented code similar to yours (a halt decider
    H that simulates P, detects recursive calls, and aborts to return non- halting). You (as Mr Flibble) countered that such a simulation-based
    decider is invalid because it doesn't return a decision to the caller,
    leading to artificial infinite recursion that's not present in non-
    simulation versions (e.g., referencing Strachey 1965). Olcott responded by insisting the x86 semantics prove his point and that simulating deciders correctly reject non-halting inputs. This back-and-forth highlights a
    pattern where critics argue the approach sidesteps the actual problem,
    while Olcott reframes it around simulation details without resolving the contradiction.
    - Other discussions explicitly label Olcott's tactics as dishonest. In one thread, responders call him a "crank" for repeatedly posting refuted
    claims and accuse him of lying by misrepresenting software engineering principles to bypass the proofs. For example: "You are the liar, Peter." Similar sentiments appear in related posts, describing "dishonest dodges"
    where he shifts definitions or ignores established theory to maintain his position.
    - Olcott's self-published papers (e.g., on ResearchGate) reiterate these
    ideas, asserting that pathological self-reference is overcome by
    simulation abortion, but they don't engage with why this fails for the
    general case—as Turing showed, no algorithm can handle all inputs without contradiction.

    The consensus in these communities is that Olcott's persistence involves rehashing debunked arguments, often ignoring or reframing rebuttals, which aligns with your accusation of dishonesty. It's not uncommon for such long- running debates to devolve into claims of crankery when one side doesn't concede to established proofs.

    /Grok

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sun Aug 17 11:08:59 2025
    On 2025-08-15 15:23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

    Peter Olcott has been discussing variations of this idea for years across forums like Usenet groups (e.g., comp.theory, comp.lang.c++),
    ResearchGate, and PhilArchive, often claiming to "refute" the Halting
    Problem proofs through simulating halt deciders (SHDs) that abort on
    infinite patterns. These claims are frequently met with criticism,
    including accusations of crankery, dishonesty, and dodging
    counterarguments.

    For instance:
    - In a 2022 thread, Olcott presented code similar to yours (a halt decider
    H that simulates P, detects recursive calls, and aborts to return non- halting). You (as Mr Flibble) countered that such a simulation-based
    decider is invalid because it doesn't return a decision to the caller, leading to artificial infinite recursion that's not present in non- simulation versions (e.g., referencing Strachey 1965). Olcott responded by insisting the x86 semantics prove his point and that simulating deciders correctly reject non-halting inputs. This back-and-forth highlights a
    pattern where critics argue the approach sidesteps the actual problem,
    while Olcott reframes it around simulation details without resolving the contradiction.
    - Other discussions explicitly label Olcott's tactics as dishonest. In one thread, responders call him a "crank" for repeatedly posting refuted
    claims and accuse him of lying by misrepresenting software engineering principles to bypass the proofs. For example: "You are the liar, Peter." Similar sentiments appear in related posts, describing "dishonest dodges" where he shifts definitions or ignores established theory to maintain his position.
    - Olcott's self-published papers (e.g., on ResearchGate) reiterate these ideas, asserting that pathological self-reference is overcome by
    simulation abortion, but they don't engage with why this fails for the general case—as Turing showed, no algorithm can handle all inputs without contradiction.

    The consensus in these communities is that Olcott's persistence involves rehashing debunked arguments, often ignoring or reframing rebuttals, which aligns with your accusation of dishonesty. It's not uncommon for such long- running debates to devolve into claims of crankery when one side doesn't concede to established proofs.

    Beyond some fairly low level honesty is a skill that one cannot have
    wihout learning. Good honesty requires some effort even with good
    skills.

    --
    Mikko

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