Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:53:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <102h3gg$3e0g0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4> <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> <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> <102e21p$2ipl5$1@dont-email.me> <102er6u$2ohps$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 13:53:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c40a1205e8a6c6978bf722a4c5e06e48";
	logging-data="3604992"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18M/hyirp5eI563eE6Qysgq"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xpae4AEn7ql2gzRYKArrgScKyb8=

On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort.
> 
> A web-page is not a permanent archive.

Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.

-- 
Mikko