On 21/08/2025 03:36, olcott wrote:

On 8/20/2025 9:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/08/2025 21:42, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

<snip>

And your halt decider is? Crap, Lie, or both?

Well, it gets the answer wrong, as one can easily see by
compiling and running DD().

Of course, that doesn't answer /your/ question.

I don't /know/ the answer to your question, but I can guess, of
course, and my guess is that it's crap.

Maybe - just *maybe* - Mr Olcott has managed to keep a gag
running for 22 years and still finds it amusing to parade his
Comp Sci bollocks around and lure people into taking him
seriously while he stuffs a satyrical fist into his mouth and
chortles at us all. I have to concede the possibility.

But I don't think so. I think he's sincere; I really do.
Hopelessly misguided? Sure. Innately unable to "get" Turing's
point? Indubitably. Capable of misrepresenting people in the
hope that he can twist their words into support for his case?
No question (videlicet his citation of my agreeing that he has
a case for returning 0 from HHH(DD), which he stopped doing
only when I turned it into a #define)? Without question. But I
don't think he's lying about his 'decider'. I really think he
really thinks he's got something.

So it's not a lie. It's just crap. Sheer, unmitigated bollocks,
but probably sincere bollocks.

Does that answer your question?

HHH uses cooperative multi-tasking to switch between
itself and its simulated DD instance.

Look up "non sequitur" when you get a minute.

--
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)