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: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:44:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <101njbr$7qau$2@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me>
 <d8d7c46fe2728e5481a504e6edacc8fd0fea5285@i2pn2.org>
 <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me> <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fbth$173bb$13@dont-email.me> <101fcgj$19e5f$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fia9$1cj4h$1@dont-email.me> <101fl5a$1dfmq$1@dont-email.me>
 <101fvok$1gaq8$1@dont-email.me> <101g68s$1i7tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <101g7ph$1iik6$1@dont-email.me> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 21:45:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f7236405f11469ad97f9c31a5094e4ab";
	logging-data="256350"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WXqlW8ttqVoUgMzhhX2a3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aj9iYOIv6ZVj8UvcwvNR8Q3y9HM=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250603-0, 6/2/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3249

On 6/3/2025 10:38 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his 
>>> position, PO can (will) just invent new magical thinking that only he 
>>> is smart enough to understand, in order to somehow justify his busted 
>>> intuitions.
>>
>> My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even 
>> though it looks like it does:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
>>  > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
>>  > BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
>>  > Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
>>  > a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
>>  > then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
> 
> Right - magical thinking.
> 

Like I said until you pay enough attention it may seem
that way. I know that I am correct because I can see
all of the details of a semantic tautology.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

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