Re: What. A. Slog.

On 5/14/25 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 2:11 AM, vallor wrote:

Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts.  Huboy,
what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>
I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
point out three things:
>
a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 That is counter-factual. DDD correctly simulated by HHH
*would never stop running unless aborted*
 

No, it is counter-factual to say that HHH correctly simulated DDD.
After all, by your stipulations, the "input DDD" is JUST that code, and doesn't include the HHH that it calls, and therefore you CAN'T simulate "DDD" into HHH, but you must.

>
b) Mr. Olcott appears to agree with Turing at this point, but may
be unwilling to abandon the work he's spent so much time on.
>
c) (I am not a doctor.)  After seeing Mr. Olcott's representations
of Professor Sipser's words, as well as the way he edits his posts,
as well as the way he ignores clear refutation, my personal,
non-professional, opinion is that he's more deluded than
outright dishonest.  Hopefully he can avoid the latter in the future.
>

 It turns out that rhetoric does not really count as rebuttal.
Neither does changing my words and rebutting these changed words.
 

Finally, I agree with what others have posted:  this stuff doesn't belong
in comp.lang.c.  Mr. Olcott:  you actually have a few experts _and_
authorities in the C language reading you in this group.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 All of those "experts" say that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH will reach its "return" statement.
Any novice C programmer can see that this is not true.

Yes, when you complete DDD with the HHH that is in memory when your HHH that you claim is giving the right answer is in memory, and which doesn't even correcctly emulate that DDD/HHH combination, since it gives up, when correctly simulated will go from DDD into HHH that will sijmulate its input (plus that HHH added) for a while, then abort and return to DDD which will then return.
Your problem is you lie to yourself that you can change what is in the memory, and what "DDD" is. Choose:
1) It is just the code of the C function, and doesn't include anything outside, in which case it just isn't a program, and a correct sumulation of that DDD can't look elsewhere, or it isn't actually emulating DDD.
2) It is your code for the C funciton, and it includes the contents of that it references, in which case that memory IS part of the input, and thus you can't change it to make you hypothetical HHH without changing the input, and thus you argument is just based on lies.
3) The memory it references is just included as part of the system, at which point it just need to be fully defined, and can't change. Thus you need to decide WHICH HHH you are actually talking about. It seem you need it to be the HHH that simulatates until it THINKS it has proven that it won't be able to simulate it, and aborts. The problem is it then needs to also consider that this is also the HHH that the DDD being simulated calls, and thus HHH needs to include that behavior in its analysis of DDD, and if HHH thinks it should abort, it needs to also consider that the HHH it is simulating will do so too, something you negect to do.

 

 Perhaps
you should follow their suggestions?  (Since the description of your
algorithms are expressed in C, you might want to concentrate on that,
rather than the compilers assembler language output.)
>