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 11:14:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 236
Message-ID: <102ca1c$22pmt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <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>
 <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.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 18:14:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5844607f8c5789cdff36a135feed3c9";
	logging-data="2189021"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1GyV3YNxX71Az/cfDTDWs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CbSMCYulBaV/J4WYOGT05btj1GA=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250611-2, 6/11/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/11/2025 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========