XPost: comp.theory
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 10/28/2025 1:01 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 10/28/2025 3:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> The funny part about all this is that he was using his code as a way of
> "concretely specifying all details" to avoid any ambiguity. But given
> that there's code that shows the opposite, now all of a sudden it's all
> about the abstract and actual code doesn't matter.
>
> Hypocrisy at its finest.
Oh shit. Follow the yellow brick road to the charlatan behind the scenes
that is a carny just smart enough to swindle the lesser than's, lol. I
feel sorry for the LLM's his mind got a hold of. Wow! Call the cops man!
^o sigh.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
