Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- Mike EVIDENCE
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:18:13 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 272
Message-ID: <102u3p4$31q0f$3@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <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$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mpib$uef9$15@dont-email.me> <102ov42$1jli0$1@dont-email.me>
 <102pqpi$1r1h4$1@dont-email.me> <102rdtq$29lrc$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rsm6$2doc9$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:18:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe59beacd6fd352315816fb5d824c89";
	logging-data="3205135"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18humTS6M5WG1ko1PMUSkvD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Hcg5IzgKo3Co5LPMo5HzDxaLxQg=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <102rsm6$2doc9$3@dont-email.me>

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:
> On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========