People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not...
On 8/18/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 22:13, wij wrote:
People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not...
It's incomplete, when it needn't be incomplete. How is that not
wrong?
<Input to LLM systems>
On 8/18/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Your simulation is incomplete, when it needn't be incomplete.
How is that not wrong?
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"
you stupid f-cker.
On 8/18/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 23:48, olcott wrote:
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"
you stupid f-cker.
Am I talking with a computer scientist or a juvenile delinquent?
On 8/18/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
It is an easily verified fact, as you love to say,
that if DD calls HHH (as it does) and HHH calls DD
(as, through simulation, it effectively does) that
HHH(DD) can never halt naturally, so it will have
to abort the recursion and report its result as 0
- didn't halt.
On 8/18/2025 7:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 01:34, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 23:48, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"
you stupid f-cker.
Am I talking with a computer scientist or a juvenile delinquent?
On 8/18/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
It is an easily verified fact, as you love to say,
that if DD calls HHH (as it does) and HHH calls DD
(as, through simulation, it effectively does) that
HHH(DD) can never halt naturally, so it will have
to abort the recursion and report its result as 0
- didn't halt.
And therefore you can memoise HHH(DD) instead of recursing into
it,
No it would have to know its own machine address to do this.
It must recurse into it to see the repeating state.
allowing you to simulate the parts of DD you have hitherto been
unable to reach.
Because they are inherently unreachable unless you cheat.
On 8/18/2025 7:56 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 01:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
allowing you to simulate the parts of DD you have hitherto
been unable to reach.
Because they are inherently unreachable unless you cheat.
It's not cheating. It's programming.
That is the "can't change the input" cheating that
dbush was always correct about yet never referred to.
Too late you already admitted that the simulation
is correct.
On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 20:35 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or innate.
Whichever it is it is indistinguishable from trolling at this point.
olcott is not trolling, he is, simply, too stupid and a liar.
A problem is, other people seemingly does not understand proof as well.
The HP proof has nothing to do with the implement of H. People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not... So, olcott desperately defends 'the simulation' is correct.
It is you failed to rebuttal (if you insist the simulation is wrong).
On 8/18/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 23:34, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 22:13, wij wrote:
People insists the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not...
It's incomplete, when it needn't be incomplete. How is that not
wrong?
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or innate.
On 8/18/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 02:08, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:56 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 01:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
allowing you to simulate the parts of DD you have hitherto been
unable to reach.
Because they are inherently unreachable unless you cheat.
It's not cheating. It's programming.
That is the "can't change the input" cheating that
dbush was always correct about yet never referred to.
No, it isn't. You're not changing the input; you're changing the
programming.
You change the input when you ignore 75% of it. I'm giving you a way
to get to that 75%.
You can now edge a little closer towards "correct simulation".
But you won't, because correct simulation doesn't suit your
needs. You only call it "cheating" because you need an excuse
not to do it.
Too late you already admitted that the simulation
is correct.
I'm a more careful writer than you are a reader.
Counter-factual in this case.
If is flat out incorrect to require a complete
simulation of a non terminating input such as the
input to HHH(DD).
On 8/19/2025 3:08 AM, joes wrote:A pure simulator is not required to halt, and HHH is not one.
Am Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:48:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:If is flat out incorrect to require a complete simulation of a non terminating input such as the input to HHH(DD).
On 8/18/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:As it should!
On 18/08/2025 23:34, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 22:13, wij wrote:
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"People insists the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not...It's incomplete, when it needn't be incomplete. How is that not
wrong?
When people say that a correct simulation must
be a complete simulation of a non-terminating
input they directly contradict themselves.
On 8/19/2025 9:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
When people say that a correct simulation must be a complete simulationIf is flat out incorrect to require a complete simulation of a non
terminating input such as the input to HHH(DD).
Nobody requires that. No simulation is required. What is required is a
decider. If you can't decide by simulation (and you can't), analyse.
of a non-terminating input they directly contradict themselves.
Am Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:11:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/19/2025 9:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 15:31, olcott wrote:
When people say that a correct simulation must be a complete simulationIf is flat out incorrect to require a complete simulation of a non
terminating input such as the input to HHH(DD).
Nobody requires that. No simulation is required. What is required is a
decider. If you can't decide by simulation (and you can't), analyse.
of a non-terminating input they directly contradict themselves.
A simulator doesn’t need to halt.
On 8/18/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
It is an easily verified fact, as you love to say,
that if DD calls HHH (as it does) and HHH calls DD
(as, through simulation, it effectively does) that
HHH(DD) can never halt naturally, so it will have
to abort the recursion and report its result as 0
- didn't halt.
On 8/19/2025 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/19/2025 12:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
;still get > the answer wrong.
;
In other words, even when/if you fix your simulator, it will
So it seems you agree that HHH gets the wrong answer.
On 8/19/2025 1:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/08/2025 19:07, dbush wrote:
On 8/19/2025 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/19/2025 12:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
;will still get > the answer wrong.
;
In other words, even when/if you fix your simulator, it
[Olcott replies, but fails to address my point...]
So it seems you agree that HHH gets the wrong answer.
It's better than that. He agrees that HHH has no state and
always returns 0.
That is a lie.
On 8/19/2025 10:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:31:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/19/2025 3:08 AM, joes wrote:A pure simulator is not required to halt, and HHH is not one.
Am Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:48:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:If is flat out incorrect to require a complete simulation of a non
On 8/18/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:As it should!
On 18/08/2025 23:34, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 18/08/2025 22:13, wij wrote:
Likewise the simulation HHH(Infinite_Loop) is "incomplete"People insists the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not... >>>>>>>> It's incomplete, when it needn't be incomplete. How is that not >>>>>>>> wrong?
terminating input such as the input to HHH(DD).
When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
On 8/19/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-18 21:13:05 +0000, wij said:
On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 20:35 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or
innate. > Whichever it is it is indistinguishable from trolling at
this point.
olcott is not trolling, he is, simply, too stupid and a liar.
A problem is, other people seemingly does not understand proof as well.
The HP proof has nothing to do with the implement of H. People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not... So, olcott desperately >>> defends 'the simulation' is correct.
It is you failed to rebuttal (if you insist the simulation is wrong).
Some people point out some errors, others point out other errors.
Olcott uses the term "simulation" but not "partial simulation" so
the simulation can be called "wrong". But it has also been pointed
out that the "non-halting" pattern does not imply non-halting, and
that a "wrong" simulation does not invalidate the algorithm as long
as the result is correct (which Olcott's result is not).
Anyway, the visible actions of Olcott matter more than his invisible
mental processes.
Lines 996 through 1006 matches the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern* https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
On 8/19/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-18 21:13:05 +0000, wij said:
On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 20:35 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or
innate. > Whichever it is it is indistinguishable from trolling at
this point.
olcott is not trolling, he is, simply, too stupid and a liar.
A problem is, other people seemingly does not understand proof as well.
The HP proof has nothing to do with the implement of H. People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not... So, olcott desperately >>> defends 'the simulation' is correct.
It is you failed to rebuttal (if you insist the simulation is wrong).
Some people point out some errors, others point out other errors.
Olcott uses the term "simulation" but not "partial simulation" so
the simulation can be called "wrong". But it has also been pointed
out that the "non-halting" pattern does not imply non-halting, and
that a "wrong" simulation does not invalidate the algorithm as long
as the result is correct (which Olcott's result is not).
Anyway, the visible actions of Olcott matter more than his invisible
mental processes.
Lines 996 through 1006 matches the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern* https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
On 8/19/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-18 20:35:30 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or innate.
It doesn't matter. The only thing we can do is to point out that
the truth is different.
If people pay close enough attention they see that I am correct.
On 8/18/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
It is an easily verified fact, as you love to say,
that if DD calls HHH (as it does) and HHH calls DD
(as, through simulation, it effectively does) that
HHH(DD) can never halt naturally, so it will have
to abort the recursion and report its result as 0
- didn't halt.
On 8/19/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-18 21:13:05 +0000, wij said:
On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 20:35 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful or innate. >>>> > Whichever it is it is indistinguishable from trolling at this point.
olcott is not trolling, he is, simply, too stupid and a liar.
A problem is, other people seemingly does not understand proof as well.
The HP proof has nothing to do with the implement of H. People insists
the simulation is wrong, but as said it is not... So, olcott desperately >>> defends 'the simulation' is correct.
It is you failed to rebuttal (if you insist the simulation is wrong).
Some people point out some errors, others point out other errors.
Olcott uses the term "simulation" but not "partial simulation" so
the simulation can be called "wrong". But it has also been pointed
out that the "non-halting" pattern does not imply non-halting, and
that a "wrong" simulation does not invalidate the algorithm as long
as the result is correct (which Olcott's result is not).
Anyway, the visible actions of Olcott matter more than his invisible
mental processes.
Lines 996 through 1006 matches the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern* https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:19:50 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,606 |