Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct

On 5/17/25 8:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Hi!
 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: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as non-
halting.
 This is valid due to Flibble's Law:
 If a problem permits infinite behavior in its formulation, it permits
infinite analysis of that behavior in its decidability scope.
 /Flibble

Right, but if the input is the actual program as derived in the halting proof, then the simulation, if run to completion will halt, and does not show infinite behavior of any form.
The DDD given as the input is built from the HHH that is claimed to get the right answer, and thus is the HHH that will abort at some point and return 0.
The code for that HHH that does that is made part of the program DDD, and is encoded in the input.
Therefore the correct simulation of that input by the hypothetical HHH, which is given that same input, which has the aborting code, will see tht it will reach the end.
The error that Olcott makes is the type error of giving a non-leaf function, without all the code needed as an input when it needs to be a program. His input is just invalid, and shows that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Agreeing with him will also show the same confusion.