1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • What Olcott doesn't understand

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 15 21:38:04 2025
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of its input,
    it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its input even
    in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it isn't then
    it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine code) and
    its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD) "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Aug 16 05:30:24 2025
    On 16/08/2025 04:44, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 4:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of
    its input,
    it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its
    input even
    in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it
    isn't then
    it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function
    pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine
    code) and
    its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD)
    "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.

    DD invoked by main can and does give the lie to HHH(DD).

    That HHH covers its eyes and says it can't see is, quite frankly,
    pathetic.

    --
    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 Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Aug 16 05:54:34 2025
    On 16/08/2025 05:39, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 11:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:44, olcott wrote:

    <snip>


    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.

    DD invoked by main can and does give the lie to HHH(DD).


    Kaz said these are different DD instances.

    That's as maybe - but they are the same DD. ISO/IEC 9899
    guarantees it. DD invoked by main can and does give the lie to
    HHH(DD).

    --
    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 Sat Aug 16 08:14:41 2025
    On 8/15/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 4:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of its input,
    it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its input even
    in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it isn't then
    it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine code) and
    its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD) "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.


    Right, but the CORRECT EMULATION continues when you try to abort it, as
    correct emulation can't be aborted.

    Your problem is you aren't looking at what you need to be working but
    are focusing on the ignorance of HHH, and trying to make it an excuse,
    just as at one point you tried to make your own ignorance a reason you
    weren't lying.

    The problem is somethings behavior should only be dependent on it, so X simulated by Y (where that simulation might be partial) is as much
    dependent on Y as it is on X, and thus not a proper meaning for a
    behavior of X.

    But, you are too stupid to understand that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Aug 16 08:16:21 2025
    On 8/16/25 12:39 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 11:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:44, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 4:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of its
    input,
    it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its input
    even
    in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it isn't
    then
    it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine
    code) and
    its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD) "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.

    DD invoked by main can and does give the lie to HHH(DD).


    Kaz said these are different DD instances.


    And thus you can't use one for the other's behavior.

    All you are doing is admitting that your logic is based on lies.

    Programs have determinative behavior, and don't depend on who is
    "running" them, only on their input.

    In your worlds, reliable programs can't exist.


    That HHH covers its eyes and says it can't see is, quite frankly,
    pathetic.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Aug 17 11:20:12 2025
    On 2025-08-16 03:44:40 +0000, olcott said:

    On 8/15/2025 4:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of its input,
    it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its input even
    in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it isn't then
    it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine code) and
    its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD) "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.

    An important aspect of understanding would be to understand what
    is relevant and what is not.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Aug 17 11:22:00 2025
    On 2025-08-16 04:39:45 +0000, olcott said:

    On 8/15/2025 11:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 16/08/2025 04:44, olcott wrote:
    On 8/15/2025 4:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    What Olcott doesn't understand.

    A simulating halt decider's call stack is not a description of its input, >>>> it is an implementation detail of the halt decider itself, its input even >>>> in the self referential case must be a finite string -- if it isn't then >>>> it isn't a halt decider and is unrelated to the Halting Problem.

    Using Olcott's terminology, HHH(DD), DD (even if a function pointer)
    refers to a *finite description*, the program's "text" (machine code) and >>>> its called, DD() will do the opposite of whatever HHH(DD) "reports"
    thereby confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are valid.

    /Flibble

    DD emulated by HHH can't do one damn thing
    after it has been aborted and it can't reach
    its own "if" statement before it has been aborted.

    DD invoked by main can and does give the lie to HHH(DD).

    Kaz said these are different DD instances.

    Instances don't matter. DD is a type and the halting question is a
    question about the type.

    --
    Mikko

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