Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/31/2025 10:45 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/31/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 5:12 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 31/05/2025 10:46, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-30 18:40:01 +0000, olcott said:

>
<snip>
>

>
to HHH(DDD)
does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.

>
No, it is not. Nobody has seen the input to HHH(DDD) running forever.
So the "non-halting" is not a verified fact.

>
>
The unfailingly patient Mike Terry will forgive me if I have remembered him incorrectly, but I seem to recall... wait... I can quote him:
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just as a reminder I'll repeat the final outcome of all this:
>
-  PO's H does decide NEVER_HALTS for TM H^ running with input <H^>.
-  PO's H^ running with input <H^> in fact halts, in line with Linz logic (b) above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
...so it halts. End of, one would think.
>
>

>
That is the same thing as saying that you never have
to eat because you know that after you eat you will
no longer be hungry.
>
The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH before it has
been aborted is different than the behavior of DDD
emulated by HHH1 after HHH has already aborted its DDD.
>
These differences have always been there for three years
and everyone here thinks that they can just assume them away.
>
>

  The emulation performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:
 

*You are a damned liar*
HHH performs two recursive emulations of DDD.
HHH performs one non-recursive emulation of DDD.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer