Re: Why Peter Olcott is proven correct by honest reviewers

Op 18.mei.2025 om 04:08 schreef olcott:

On 5/17/2025 8:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote:

Hi!
>
In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a
correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:

>
Right.  If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input halts. This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones, whatever they are exactly.
>
PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation.  If that DD is simulated to completion it halts,

 Deceptive wording.
DDD simulated by HHH has no completion.
 

Counterfactual and deceptive wording.
Counterfactual, because HHH aborts and in this strange incorrect way completes its simulation.
Deceptive, because 'has no completion', does not mean has no end. It has an end, because the simulation is aborted.
The code to abort is specified in the input finite string given to HHH.
So, when HHH does not complete the simulation, it fails to reach the reachable end.
Stop dreaming of an infinite recursion. There is no infinite recursion when the code includes the abort. Instead of dreams, look at the facts. Come out of rebuttal mode.