XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/27/2025 7:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-27, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-27, dbush  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/27/2025 4:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-27, dbush  wrote:   
   >>>>>> I am only referring to these fifteen lines   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   >>>>>> C programmer can easily determine:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>      int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>      return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When I posted the git repo several days ago, Olcott immediately   
   >>>> called me dishonest and replied with the above nonsense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> He has been repeating it ever since.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Basically a meltdown, of sorts.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh yeah, he's thrashing.  He knows he's been beat and doesn't dare look   
   >>> at your code, lest he has to admit he wasted the last 21 years.   
   >>   
   >> But I explained that the code can help you validate that your cheats are   
   >> working. If you want to say that DDD simulated by HHH does not halt, and   
   >> not be lying, you can now test that actual claim. If the simulated DDD   
   >> halts, and you would like it not to, you have something to iterate   
   >> against to get that fixed.   
   >>   
   >> Every engineer would be happy to have an easy, ready-made way to test   
   >> the property of their system that they want to believe to be true.   
   >>   
   >> Instead of thank you, we get a childish tantrum.   
   >   
   > Unfortunately, it is not that rosy. The problem is that Olcott has not   
   > only been claiming that various D's do not terminate when simulated   
   > by various H's. He's been claiming that the D's do not terminate because   
   > they never reach the "do the opposite" logic at all.   
   >   
   > For instance, I ran a test on an old Halt.obj pulled from the git   
   > history, and found that when its simulation of the abandoned DD is   
   > continued, it soon hits an infinite loop.   
   >   
   > While, for that .obj file, it confirms the claim that the simulated DD   
   > doesn't terminate, the problem is that the simulated DD in that   
   > situation fails to terminate due to getting into the infinite loop,   
   > which is only possible because the simulated HHH(DD) returned non-zero   
   > to simulated DD.   
   >   
   > Thus the simulated HHH says, about the doubly-simulated DD, that the   
   > doubly-simulated DD halts A bug or cheat has been exposed in the   
   > machine; it is contradicting itself.   
   >   
   > Olcott knows that continuing the abandoned simulation uncovers   
   > damning evidence against his contraption, regardless of whether it   
   > halts or not.   
   >   
      
   int D()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = H(D);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   H simulates D   
   that calls H(D) to simulate D   
   that calls H(D) to simulate D   
   that calls H(D) to simulate D   
   that calls H(D) to simulate D   
   that calls H(D) to simulate D   
   until H sees this repeating pattern   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)