Path: 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: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:29:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 190
Message-ID: <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:29:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5844607f8c5789cdff36a135feed3c9";
	logging-data="2169466"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FcGfvSbsoH7NRk8vvS7Kf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZJ1OStLnwtbHYdA+H1sNuEm/kwc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250611-2, 6/11/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US

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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to the multiple levels involved.  In his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head they all become a mush of confustions, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mystery here is why PO does not /realise/ that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can't think his way through it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not up to it.  Somehow PO tries, gets into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes beyond that of everybody else, due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody on the planet, and my ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate extraneous complexity".  How did PO ever start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down this path of delusions?  Not that that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters one iota... :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of POOH, but it does not matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H or D are implemented, because:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To a large extent it is. Both are intended to describe those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sets that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were tought to be usefult to think about. But the naive set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes some sets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, Quine's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atom. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of choice and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequences should be included or excluded, so both ZF and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC are used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quine's atom is nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to exist or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own father.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the say the material world works. Imaginary things like sets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, though a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consitent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination is more useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then one could imagine the
>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of properties of
>>>>>>>>>>> an impossible decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT HALTING*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. Anyway, DDD does
>>>>>>>>> reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do people always have to be damned liars and change
>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to
>>>>>>>> these changed words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
>>>>>> MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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* because
>>>>>> this input specifies that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds perfect for me (but like others: you may have posted "1+2=3"
>>>>> , or various tautology, as proof that your POOH is correct).
>>>>> No, all such are irrelevant.
>>>>> HP asks for "THE H" that decide the halting property of its argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>      DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require HHH(DDD)
>>>> to report on the behavior of the direct execution
>>>> of DDD() because this DDD() *IS ITS CALLER*
>>>> and not its input.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========