Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct

On 2025-05-18 00:11:22 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a
correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:
whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes no
difference:

You so far you are right. But that is not what Olcott says: he claims
that HHH may correclty report "does not halt" when the actual input
specifies a halting computation.

we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as non-
halting.

That infinte recursion is not in the input as can be proven by
an execution of the program specified by the input:
in main (void) {
  output("Asking HHH.");
  if (HHH(DDD)) {
    output("HHH says DDD halts.");
  } else {
    output("HHH says DDD does not halt.");
  }
  output("Trying DDD.");
  DDD();
  output("DDD has halted.");
}
There are functions for output in Olcott's library.
Olcott is wrong as shown many times. You are wrong about Olcott.
--
Mikko