Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:

<snip>

HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts,

>
When you trace through the actual steps you
will see that this is counter-factual.

>
No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of the two traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed IDENTICAL line for line up to the point where HHH decided to discontinue simulating.

 That is counter-factual.

People who can be bothered to check for themselves can check for themselves.
People who (like me) can't be arsed to go through the palaver of getting your code to work must instead decide who they think is more credible - you or Mike.
No contest.
If you want people to believe you, you've got your work cut out. Shooting emotionally from the hip (as you do) isn't as convincing as explaining precisely, logically, and dispassionately why you're right (as Mike does).
If I were to run a book right now on an independent investigation of the point in the trace where the two traces diverge, I could offer astronomical odds on your claim without any fear of losing a penny, but no matter what odds I offered on Mike I would quickly have to close the book on his claim or face bankruptcy.
It isn't just your logic that needs a lot off work; it's your presentation, too. You come across as someone who /believes/ you're right, but it's not enough to call down lightning on Mike the heretic; Mike manages to keep calm because he /knows/ he's right. There's a huge and important difference between the two.
There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-factual. Mike says he's posted evidence in support of his claim. I haven't seen it, but of the two of you I will unhesitatingly take his word for it rather than yours. Have you posted a rebuttal? If not, why not?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within