Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct

On 2025-05-18 02:32:10 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

On Sat, 17 May 2025 21:28:23 -0500, olcott wrote:
 

On 5/17/2025 8:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:06:43 +0100, 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, so that is what his SHD
needs to report.  PO has verified this directly, and has published the
traces showing DD halting when simulated to completion.
 

whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes
no difference: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be
viewed as non-
halting.

 Eh?  PO does have a couple of SHDs that simulate his DD to completion,
and they all show DD halting!
There's no infinite recursion, only some level of finite recursive
simulation.
 PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to
completion.  It aborts, and then decides non-halting.  That's the
reverse of what you said in the first paragraph.  So your thread title
is misleading - PO is actually *incorrect*.  I've corrected the title
to avoid confusion.

 No, halting the simulation is NOT THE SAME as a halting result of
HALTING for what is being simulated.  I have changed the subject title
back, you jackass.
 /Flibble

 He is only terribly wrong on this one point. Mike has by far the most
complete understanding of my work than anyone else in the world.
 He may have never heard of the *Strawman Fallacy*
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a
distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the
argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy
 He even showed exactly how the words Professor Sipser agreed to do
derive a correct simulating termination analyzer.
 On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/?

STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E

  Before Mike's succinct and correct reply all of my reviewers were having
fun playing sadistic head games insisting on only talking in endless
circles.

 Yes, I am getting that impression too: this is the problem with learn by
rote vs genuine understanding, no critical thinking.

Some participants of these discussions are are very poor both at learning
by rote and at critical thinking.
--
Mikko