Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric -- RP
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 21:03:30 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <1000q52$24gr3$2@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> <vvvtki$1tgam$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvvud5$1so2t$3@dont-email.me> <1000ce4$21dtc$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 03:03:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4573950805358eaedd8b0785eca37f";
	logging-data="2245475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NzztPgqogdFKnaDw8HQRg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vX60OovtKwIez6OLXkfb/2o/rcU=
In-Reply-To: <1000ce4$21dtc$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/13/2025 5:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 12:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 11:21 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. 
>>>>>>>>>> It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what 
>>>>>>>>>> PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by 
>>>>>>>>>> both PO and responders...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I 
>>>>>>>>> have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would 
>>>>>>>>> be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the 
>>>>>>>>> game go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same 
>>>>>>>>> position. Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has 
>>>>>>>>> ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the 
>>>>>>>>> fiftieth time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time 
>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum 
>>>>>>>>> would be considerably shorter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If people would actually address rather than
>>>>>>>> dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
>>>>>>>> they would see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his 
>>>>>>> dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and 
>>>>>>> refuted many times already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might call that a disturbing ko.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just like naive set theory wanted to know
>>> about Russell's Paradox until ZFC came along
>>> and ruled that questions about Russell's Paradox
>>> are based on an incorrect notion of set theory.
>>
>> But unlike Russell's Paradox, there's nothing wrong with the fact that 
>> a halt decider doesn't exist.
>>
>>
> 
> Sure there is. 

Nope.  Russell's Paradox was derived from the base axioms of naive set 
theory, proving the whole system was inconsistent.

In contrast, there is nothing in existing computation theory that 
requires that a halt decider exists.

> A halt decider doesn't exist
> for the same reason that the set of all sets
> that do not contain themselves does not exist.
> *As defined both were simply wrong-headed ideas*

There's nothing wrong-headed about wanting to know if any arbitrary 
algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.  An algorithm 
that can tell us that in all possible cases would be very useful.

On the other hand, something that tells us if "X simulated by H" halts 
is not useful.