Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 30/05/2025 19:48, dbush wrote:

On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/30/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>
+++++
Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, that we can invent a machine <D- which, when supplied with the S.D of any computing machine i l will test this S.D and if i l is circular will mark the S.D with the symbol "u" and if it is circle-free will mark it with " s ".
+++++
>
By "the S.D. of any computing machine" he means the 'standard description' of >>>>any<<<< Turing machine.
>
HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing whatsoever on the Turing proof.
>

>
It is a verified fact that

HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing whatsoever on the Turing proof.

i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level.
 

does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.

 False, as algorithm HHH, which is what the input describes / specifies, halts when executed directly or when simulated by UTM.

It doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant to Turing's proof. Olcott is just copy-pasting a lot of hot air. If he had anything important to say he'd have said it by now, and I really don't think he has.
--
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