Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway?

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been posted here.
PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various traces.
i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both these
results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>
You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>
That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!

He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for
H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone continues to
discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.

So really, there's no /need/ to "refute" everything he says - the end
result will be exactly the same as just ignoring him, BUT WITH THE LATTER
ONLY NEEDING 0.1% OF THE EFFORT and eliminating 99.9% of the posting
clutter in these newsgroups.  [ok, comp.theory will die pretty quickly, but
it is not discussing anything useful, so that's ok for most people... (with
some reluctance)]

Do we know that?  There's the start of a discussion of quines on
comp.lang.c that probably belongs here, but no will dare come here to
discuss it because of all the junk.

--
Ben.