XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:25:35 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 8/3/2025 8:54 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:28:09 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 8/3/2025 7:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 07:05:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> Your problem is you don't find an error in the shown counter   
   >>>>> example, because your created input that you claim to solve has   
   >>>>> essential differences from it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The first one is that you keep on trying to use a non-program, that   
   >>>>> doesn't include all of its code, like a copy of the decider as part   
   >>>>> of it,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> IF you acknoledge that the code of HHH is part of DDD as well as   
   >>>>> being the decider, then your "simuation of DDD" becomes wrong, as   
   >>>>> you can't then ignore that the code of the copy of HHH that is in   
   >>>>> DDD will break the cycle you are seeing in just the function DDD.   
   >>>>>   
   >>> Yet again you try to get away with "stopping running"   
   >>> as the same thing as "halting" even though you recently acknowledged   
   >>> that they are not the same.   
   >>>   
   >>> DDD and HHH correctly emulated by the executed HHH cannot possibly   
   >>> ever reach their own final halt states no matter what HHH does.   
   >>>   
   >>> If HHH aborts after one billion recursive emulations neither the   
   >>> correctly emulated HHH nor the correctly emulated DDD would ever halt   
   >>> even though they stop running.   
   >>>   
   >>> Richard always uses the strawman fallacy and changes the subject away   
   >>> from DDD correctly simulated by HHH.   
   >>> This is a dishonest attempt at deception.   
   >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man   
   >>>>> Sorry. all you are doing is showing that you think lying is ok,   
   >>>>> which goes counter to your claimed goal of finding a way to   
   >>>>> determine truth better.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So Olcott is lying, where do you go from here?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> /Flibble   
   >>>   
   >>> *I am not lying. Richard is the liar*   
   >>>   
   >>> When I say that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H   
   cannot   
   >>> possibly reach its own final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩   
   >>> because it remains stuck in recursive simulation this is self-evident   
   >>> by the meaning of my words.   
   >>   
   >> Being "stuck in" recursive simulation   
   >   
   > Means that the simulated final halt state cannot possibly be reached.   
   > This *is* non-halting behavior.   
      
   No, it isn't non-halting behaviour, it is Olcott Partial Halt Decider   
   (OPHD) behaviour which is nothing to do with the halting problem.   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)