Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 16:16:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <1000cs0$21dtc$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrhl$1so2t$2@dont-email.me> <vvvu75$1rc4t$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 23:16:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43745e07502355f27fac5eed8a7d2487";
	logging-data="2144172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18m86hYoVT3C1mGi8Vr4+NA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2R9sw4j8nqbrDCiQLdjyWofrQeU=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250513-6, 5/13/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vvvu75$1rc4t$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3180

On 5/13/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
>>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
>>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite
>>> string of DD specifies:
>>
>> Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want 
>> to know about.
> 
> Why?
> 
> DDD doesn't do anything interesting.
> 
> If it were a universal halt decider we'd have a reason to care, because 
> its very existence would overturn pretty much the whole of computability 
> theory and enable us to clean up many of the unsolved problems of 
> mathematics.
> 

Sure and we could achieve the same thing by
simply hard-coding the actual all-knowing
mind of God into a formal system.

The question is not about any universal halt
decider that must be literally all knowing.

It has always actually only been about things
that could prevent consistently determining
the halt status of conventional programs.

> But it /isn't/ a universal halt decider, so who (apart from Mr Olcott) 
> gives a damn whether it stops? About the only reason I can think of for 
> caring is to set Mr Olcott straight, but he has made it abundantly clear 
> that he's unsettable straightable.
> 

There is no time that we are ever going to directly
encode omniscience into a computer program. The
screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer