Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 2025-05-31 10:12:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

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.

We still have the question will the result be the same if H and H^
are given different names.
And recently the most of the discussion has been about DDD that does
not try to contradict what HHH says but just halts. A confoming C
compiler could even compile
  int main void() {
    DDD();
    return 0;
  }
as if it were
  int main void() {
    return 0;
  }
because the excution of DDD has no effect on any output of the program.
--
Mikko