XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 01.jul.2025 om 14:44 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/1/2025 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 30.jun.2025 om 19:08 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 6/30/2025 2:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> Op 29.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>> On 6/29/2025 5:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 01:30 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> None of the code in HHH can possibly cause DDD correctly   
   >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH to reach its own simulated "return" statement.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Yes, exactly, that is the bug.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Recursive emulation is only a tiny bit more complicated   
   >>>>>>>>> than recursion yet no one here seems to have a clue.   
   >>>>>>>>> Do you know what recursion is?   
   >>>>>>>>> (If you don't that would explain a lot)   
   >>>>>>>> As usual irrelevant claims without evidence. No rebuttal.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ah so you don't know what recursion is.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> As usual a false claim without evidence.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> HHH has a bug that makes that it does not recognise the halting   
   >>>>>>>> behaviour of the program specified in the input.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If you don't even know what recursion is then   
   >>>>>>> you are totally unqualified to review these things.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And since the condition in the 'if' fails, the conclusion is not   
   >>>>>> true.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Even a beginner can see that the input is a pointer to code,   
   >>>>>>>> including the code to abort and halt. But HHH is programmed to   
   >>>>>>>> ignore the conditional branch instructions, when simulating   
   >>>>>>>> itself, so it thinks that there is an infinite loop when there   
   >>>>>>>> are only a finite number of recursions.   
   >>>>>>>> But Olcott does not understand that not all recursions are   
   >>>>>>>> infinite.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When the measure is whether or not DDD correctly   
   >>>>>>> simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own "return"   
   >>>>>>> instruction final halt state nothing inside HHH can   
   >>>>>>> possibly have any effect on this.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That you don't know this proves that you are unqualified   
   >>>>>>> to review my work.   
   >>>>>> The failure of HHH is an incorrect measure for the halting   
   >>>>>> behaviour specified in the input.   
   >>>>>> That you do not understand this explains your invalid claims.   
   >>>>>> The halting behaviour of the input can be analysed by several   
   >>>>>> other methods and they show that HHH is incorrect in its analysis.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No Turing machine can ever report on the behavior of   
   >>>>> any directly executing Turing Machine because no TM   
   >>>>> can ever take another directly executing Turing Machine   
   >>>>> as its input.   
   >>>> There is no need to report about another Turing Machine.   
   >>>   
   >>> The conventional halting problem proof incorrectly requires this.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> As usual repeated claims without evidence.   
   >>   
   >>> void DDD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>    return;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> int main()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>    DDD();   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> When the input to HHH(DDD) is correctly simulated   
   >>> by HHH then HHH correctly rejects this input as   
   >>> specifying non-halting behavior.   
   >>   
   >> No, it *incorrectly* does that. The input is DDD calling an aborting   
   >> HHH, so the input specifies a halting program.   
   >>   
   >   
   > DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly   
   > reach its own "return" instruction final halt state   
   > that DOES NOT HALT TO MATTER WHAT THE F YOU CALL IT.   
   >   
   As usual claims without evidence. (Shouting is no evidence.)   
   The input for HHH has code to abort and halt, so this input specifies a   
   halting program.   
   If HHH fails to reach that final halt state, that does not change the   
   specification.   
   The input specifies a halting program, no matter what HHH can see of it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)