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: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:36:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <102hgi3$3gqbm$4@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <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> <102h3gg$3e0g0$1@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 17:36:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e399bd54b01e470cc38d23e8ff836371";
	logging-data="3697014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SsITGH0WU/WY/MSN053Sw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uyjxtt/QxED3NkhloOqDvtkM+tQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250613-6, 6/13/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <102h3gg$3e0g0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.

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