On 21/08/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 8:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.08.2025 um 00:01 schrieb Mr Flibble:

Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is
concerned is
his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation
of) *execution* with *computation*.

Pete needs a doctor.

I consider that statement defamation of character.

People who /don't/ need a doctor take that kind of thing as a
little light leg-pulling and don't see the need to drag in
legal-sounding terms. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your answer?

--
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)

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:06:25 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 8:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.08.2025 um 00:01 schrieb Mr Flibble:

Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is concerned
is his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or his
conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.

Pete needs a doctor.

I consider that statement defamation of character.
It is an easily verified fact that

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

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

DD[0] is invoked and calls HHH[0] that creates a separate DD[1] process context with its own set of 16 virtual registers and virtual stack.

When HHH[0] encounters the call from DD[1] to HHH[1](DD)
HHH[0] simulates this HHH[1] instance within this same DD[1] process
context.

When HHH[1] begins simulating its own DD[2] it must create a separate
DD[2] process context with its own set of 16 virtual registers and
virtual stack...

on and on until OOM error (proving non-halting) when we eliminate the
u32* execution_trace data.

At which point it needs to report that "proven" non-halting decision to
its caller, DD(), which will then halt confirming the extant Halting
Problem proofs are correct.

/Flibble

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

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:45:54 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 10:11 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 21/08/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 8:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.08.2025 um 00:01 schrieb Mr Flibble:

Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is
concerned is his inability to recognise the difference between
(and/or his conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.

Pete needs a doctor.

I consider that statement defamation of character.

People who /don't/ need a doctor take that kind of thing as a little
light leg-pulling and don't see the need to drag in legal-sounding
terms. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your answer?

I will call out every instance of libel.

You do need a doctor tho, you need medication.

/Flibble

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

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:58:52 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:06:25 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 8:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.08.2025 um 00:01 schrieb Mr Flibble:

Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is
concerned is his inability to recognise the difference between
(and/or his conflation of) *execution* with *computation*.

Pete needs a doctor.

I consider that statement defamation of character.
It is an easily verified fact that

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

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

DD[0] is invoked and calls HHH[0] that creates a separate DD[1]
process context with its own set of 16 virtual registers and virtual
stack.

When HHH[0] encounters the call from DD[1] to HHH[1](DD)
HHH[0] simulates this HHH[1] instance within this same DD[1] process
context.

When HHH[1] begins simulating its own DD[2] it must create a separate
DD[2] process context with its own set of 16 virtual registers and
virtual stack...

on and on until OOM error (proving non-halting) when we eliminate the
u32* execution_trace data.

At which point it needs to report that "proven" non-halting decision to
its caller, DD(), which will then halt confirming the extant Halting
Problem proofs are correct.

/Flibble

*Only when one stupidly ignores this axiom* Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs...

Wrong, HHH takes a *description* of its caller, DD, as an input; if you
aren't doing that then you aren't working on the Halting Problem.

/Flibble

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

On 21/08/2025 17:45, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 10:11 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 21/08/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 8:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 08.08.2025 um 00:01 schrieb Mr Flibble:

Olcott's major malfunction as far as the Halting Problem is
concerned is
his inability to recognise the difference between (and/or
his conflation
of) *execution* with *computation*.

Pete needs a doctor.

I consider that statement defamation of character.

People who /don't/ need a doctor take that kind of thing as a
little light leg-pulling and don't see the need to drag in
legal-sounding terms. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your
answer?

I will call out every instance of libel.

So you're happy to dish it out but not to take it. That won't go
down well in court.

Also, libel is (written) defamation of character, and you're
going to find that /very/ hard to prove... and in the USA the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

--
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)

On 21/08/2025 18:39, olcott wrote:

On 8/21/2025 12:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 21/08/2025 17:45, olcott wrote:

<snip>

I will call out every instance of libel.

So you're happy to dish it out but not to take it. That won't
go down well in court.

Also, libel is (written) defamation of character, and you're
going to find that /very/ hard to prove... and in the USA the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

None-the-less I will continue point point out
libel, unintentional counter-factual claims
and flat out lies about my work.

And no doubt you will continue to misinterpret corrections as
"counter-factual" or "flat-out lies".

It's very cute, and we wouldn't have you any other way.

But every time you falsely accuse an interlocutor of lying, you
multiply your credibility by 0.99. After a great many such
accusations, your score is already vanishingly small, and nobody
believes a word of it.

Try restricting accusations of lying to where you have actual
evidence of intent to deceive. You may find that that one simple
measure benefits your credibility far more than idle threats of
libel in a land where your right of free speech has
constitutional protection.

--
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)

On 22/08/2025 14:57, olcott wrote:

That you cannot even find a mistake in what I say

Lots of people have pointed out lots of mistakes in what you say.
The fact that you don't agree that they're mistakes doesn't stop
them from being mistakes.

--
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)