On 2025-10-27, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/27/2025 4:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
I am only referring to these fifteen lines
A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.
When I posted the git repo several days ago, Olcott immediately
called me dishonest and replied with the above nonsense.
He has been repeating it ever since.
Basically a meltdown, of sorts.
Oh yeah, he's thrashing. He knows he's been beat and doesn't dare look
at your code, lest he has to admit he wasted the last 21 years.
But I explained that the code can help you validate that your cheats are
working. If you want to say that DDD simulated by HHH does not halt, and
not be lying, you can now test that actual claim. If the simulated DDD
halts, and you would like it not to, you have something to iterate
against to get that fixed.
Every engineer would be happy to have an easy, ready-made way to test
the property of their system that they want to believe to be true.
Instead of thank you, we get a childish tantrum.
Unfortunately, it is not that rosy. The problem is that Olcott has not
only been claiming that various D's do not terminate when simulated
by various H's. He's been claiming that the D's do not terminate because
they never reach the "do the opposite" logic at all.
For instance, I ran a test on an old Halt.obj pulled from the git
history, and found that when its simulation of the abandoned DD is
continued, it soon hits an infinite loop.
While, for that .obj file, it confirms the claim that the simulated DD doesn't terminate, the problem is that the simulated DD in that
situation fails to terminate due to getting into the infinite loop,
which is only possible because the simulated HHH(DD) returned non-zero
to simulated DD.
Thus the simulated HHH says, about the doubly-simulated DD, that the doubly-simulated DD halts A bug or cheat has been exposed in the
machine; it is contradicting itself.
Olcott knows that continuing the abandoned simulation uncovers
damning evidence against his contraption, regardless of whether it
halts or not.
On 10/27/2025 7:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-27, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/27/2025 4:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
I am only referring to these fifteen lines
A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.
When I posted the git repo several days ago, Olcott immediately
called me dishonest and replied with the above nonsense.
He has been repeating it ever since.
Basically a meltdown, of sorts.
Oh yeah, he's thrashing. He knows he's been beat and doesn't dare look >>>> at your code, lest he has to admit he wasted the last 21 years.
But I explained that the code can help you validate that your cheats are >>> working. If you want to say that DDD simulated by HHH does not halt, and >>> not be lying, you can now test that actual claim. If the simulated DDD
halts, and you would like it not to, you have something to iterate
against to get that fixed.
Every engineer would be happy to have an easy, ready-made way to test
the property of their system that they want to believe to be true.
Instead of thank you, we get a childish tantrum.
Unfortunately, it is not that rosy. The problem is that Olcott has not
only been claiming that various D's do not terminate when simulated
by various H's. He's been claiming that the D's do not terminate because
they never reach the "do the opposite" logic at all.
For instance, I ran a test on an old Halt.obj pulled from the git
history, and found that when its simulation of the abandoned DD is
continued, it soon hits an infinite loop.
While, for that .obj file, it confirms the claim that the simulated DD
doesn't terminate, the problem is that the simulated DD in that
situation fails to terminate due to getting into the infinite loop,
which is only possible because the simulated HHH(DD) returned non-zero
to simulated DD.
Thus the simulated HHH says, about the doubly-simulated DD, that the
doubly-simulated DD halts A bug or cheat has been exposed in the
machine; it is contradicting itself.
Olcott knows that continuing the abandoned simulation uncovers
damning evidence against his contraption, regardless of whether it
halts or not.
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
H simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
until H sees this repeating pattern
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,076 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 81:21:56 |
| Calls: | 13,805 |
| Files: | 186,990 |
| D/L today: |
7,252 files (2,434M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,443,304 |