XPost: comp.theory   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-28, dbush  wrote:   
   > On 10/28/2025 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 10/28/2025 11:33 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> When simulating halt decider H is reporting on the   
   >>>> behavior that its input specifies then H is correct   
   >>>> to reject D as non-halting.   
   >   
   > The above point   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> If H rejects D as non-halting, it makes D halting.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have demonstrated that with actual code.   
   >>>   
   >   
   > Is refuted above   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> When simulating halt decider H is reporting on the   
   >> behavior that its input specifies then H is correct   
   >> to reject D as non-halting.   
   >>   
   >> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual   
   >> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is   
   >> outside of the scope of Turing machines.   
   >   
   > And repeated above.   
   >   
   > Repeating a previously refuted point is less that no rebuttal and is   
   > your admission that the refutation, i.e. that Kaz's code proves that D   
   > is halting, is *CORRECT*.   
      
   It's not necessarily a *proof* per se, because it relies on Olcott's code   
   which isn't correct. It has shared, mutated states which render HHH   
   impure.   
      
   But the experiment does establish that we can continue "aborted"   
   simulations  (which Olcott has denied, calling them "totally killed),   
   and that those simulations in the same apparatus produce a result which   
   contradicts what was claimed (that DD does not halt; and moreover, this   
   is specifically because the simulated HHH never returns to DD).   
      
   In short, Olcott used a certain contraption to try to prove his claims   
   (which we know is impossible and wrong since they claims go against an   
   air-tight proof, deeply entrenched at the core of computer science).  In   
   connection with those claims, he claimed that the contraption's   
   behaviors have certain properties which substantiate the claims.  Code   
   experiments refute those claims; the contraption's behavior does not   
   have those claimed properties, like the simulated DD not returning out   
   of the HHH(DD) call.   
      
   We don't need these experiments to know that the whole thing is wrong,   
   but it may of benefit of Olcott to have a better understanding of his   
   own contraption and an additional tool to explore its behavior.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)