On 8/26/25 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/26/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-19 14:51:53 +0000, olcott said:
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.
People who have paid close enough attention have seen your mistakes.
For example:
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.
That is agreement that DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot halt because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
simulation.
But not as a halt decider, but as a POOP decider.
The problem is your definition doesn't apply to programs given
representations of programs as an input, as "needs to abort" isn't an
attribute about a program, (in the way you are using it) as it will
either abort or not.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)