Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:58:47 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 257
Message-ID: <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.camel@gmail.com>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
	 <101gaht$1j464$1@dont-email.me> <101ghl0$1p48p$1@dont-email.me>
	 <101gjb3$1p7o2$1@dont-email.me> <101hsdt$2806l$1@dont-email.me>
	 <101lodi$3pbm3$1@dont-email.me> <101mqoh$2ji$1@dont-email.me>
	 <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me>
	 <e35c1e94a1e55c9622cfedf88d401148e851f2a1.camel@gmail.com>
	 <101nk9j$7qau$7@dont-email.me> <101os21$mg8a$1@dont-email.me>
	 <101pqge$ta6v$5@dont-email.me> <101uaha$25sfi$1@dont-email.me>
	 <101v4bc$2c1iv$2@dont-email.me> <1020sak$2u1is$1@dont-email.me>
	 <1021g55$3327l$1@dont-email.me> <10236jr$3lqbg$1@dont-email.me>
	 <10237ki$3lo0a$1@dont-email.me> <1028lsi$13r5p$1@dont-email.me>
	 <1029nr5$1ah2f$11@dont-email.me> <102bgc0$1soug$1@dont-email.me>
	 <102c3bn$20jl4$8@dont-email.me>
	 <22806dcceb8dbd965792253ecfde0a7f4dc5c793.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c4g1$20jl4$12@dont-email.me>
	 <b27d3b8f4040ac88721a7b772f675f9e1cbb2c03.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c5nb$21qj7$2@dont-email.me>
	 <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:58:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf8b8c9575553bac70d62eb9d0221f21";
	logging-data="2125524"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HDP/D4e3JhzQ3Rrz/kS0M"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dO7fjCURSkcUxcnYOWUeusi3r0g=
In-Reply-To: <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me>

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2025 10:11 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 10:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2025 9:45 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 09:40 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 6/11/2025 9:36 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott sa=
id:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, =
Mike Terry wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terr=
y wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if presented with /direc=
t observations/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradicting his position, P=
O can (will) just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new magical thinking that onl=
y he is smart enough to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand, in order to someh=
ow justify his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > busted intuitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My favorite is that the directl=
y executed D(D) doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halt even though it looks like =
it does:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> The d=
irectly executed D(D) reaches a final state and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits normally.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> BECAU=
SE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BEEN ABORTED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> Thus =
meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> a com=
putation must be aborted to prevent its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > execution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> then =
this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like it does).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right - magical thinking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PO simply cannot clearly think th=
rough what's going on,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to the multiple levels involv=
ed.=C2=A0 In his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head they all become a mush of co=
nfustions, but the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mystery here is why PO does not /=
realise/ that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he can't think his way through it=
?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I try something that's beyon=
d me, I soon realise I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not up to it. =C2=A0Somehow PO tr=
ies, gets into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a total muddle, and concludes "My=
 understanding of this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes beyond that of everybody els=
e, due to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my powers of unrivalved concentra=
tion equalled by almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nobody on the planet, and my abil=
ity to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eliminate extraneous complexity".=
=C2=A0 How did PO ever start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > down this path of delusions?=C2=
=A0 Not that that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matters one iota... :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People seem to keep addressing the =
logic of the implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of POOH, but it does not matter how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H or D are implemented, because:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. POOH is not about the Halting Pr=
oblem (no logical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connection)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise ZFC was not about what is no=
w called naive set theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To a large extent it is. Both are inten=
ded to describe those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were tought to be usefult to think abou=
t. But the naive set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because it is inconsistent. However, ZF=
 excludes some sets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people want to consider, e.g., the univ=
ersal set, Quine's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > atom. There is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no agreement whether do not satisfy the=
 axiom of choice and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its various
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences should be included or excl=
uded, so both ZF and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZFC are used.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quine's atom is nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not. It is a set that one can ass=
ume to exist or not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine=
_atoms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the same as every person that is their =
own father.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not the same. Being of ones own fathe=
r is impossible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the say the material world works. Imaginary =
things like sets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagined to work wichever way one wants to imag=
ine, though a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consitent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagination is more useful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If that was true then one could imagine the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > coherent set of properties of a square circle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set=
 of properties of
> > > > > > > > > > > > an impossible decider.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > *CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NO=
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========