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 --- Mike
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 10:40:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <102mpib$uef9$15@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <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>
 <102hgi3$3gqbm$4@dont-email.me> <102jm6c$5f8r$1@dont-email.me>
 <102ju9i$793t$2@dont-email.me> <102m5ia$r98h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c51c271cf6eb0f34185f6df029618a8";
	logging-data="997865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oiN/FE+HAo9r+e2RL+I6o"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+ga24APdM4dtMMVExVgOlw3Nlio=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102m5ia$r98h$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250615-2, 6/15/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were
>>> on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens
>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they
>>> see there.
>>
>> Everything that I said is a verified fact.
> 
> You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be
> verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========