Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric

On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:

 Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want to know about.

Why?
DDD doesn't do anything interesting.
If it were a universal halt decider we'd have a reason to care, because its very existence would overturn pretty much the whole of computability theory and enable us to clean up many of the unsolved problems of mathematics.
But it /isn't/ a universal halt decider, so who (apart from Mr Olcott) gives a damn whether it stops? About the only reason I can think of for caring is to set Mr Olcott straight, but he has made it abundantly clear that he's unsettable straightable.
--
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