Re: Copyright for "simulating halt decider" by Olcott for many years --- proves itself correct

On 3/3/2025 2:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.mrt.2025 om 01:57 schreef olcott:

On 3/2/2025 6:19 PM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 02/03/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 2:40 PM, Andy Walker wrote:

   http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
[start at the third paragraph], [...]

>
     Not interested;  sorry.  I was concerned only to point out
     that
the idea of a "simulating halt decider", or any similar phrase, was
not new in 2004, but has been well-known for many [at least 60]
years.  If you choose to waste your remaining time on this planet
trying to do the impossible, go ahead.  I shan't be joining you, so
this will be my last contribution to the debate unless something
interesting crops up.  "DD"
and "HHH" and similar aren't in the least bit interesting to me;  I'm
astonished that others are so fascinated, but that's up to them.
>

Lots of people rejected the idea of simulation as an option so you
made no actually relevant point at all.
The new thing that I discovered is that DD emulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach the self-contradictory portion thus cannot possibly
thwart a correct termination status decision.

 
And Olcott thought it was a clever idea to use a simulator that gets
stuck in recursively simulating itself, so that it could not even reach
the self-contradictory part.

 
HHH has no idea that it is emulating itself emulating DD.
HHH  does see that its emulation of DD does match the infinite recursion
behavior pattern.
 

Olcott did (does) not realise that such an HHH can only report about
its own behaviour, not that of its input.

HHH sees DD call the same function with the same params twice in
sequence and HHH also sees that there are no conditional branch
instructions between the invocation of DD and its call to HHH(DD).