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 EVIDENCE
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:30:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 269
Message-ID: <102um1r$369b2$9@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <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> <102rdui$2a9fd$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rrlg$2doc9$2@dont-email.me> <102tttc$316gf$1@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 17:30:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="181068feba52be991947ff9f62d7131d";
	logging-data="3351906"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VhPIuq/ZTJG0k6KUqNZ7/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uxl1H+CkKyH20xfIFtzLU3S4NFk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250618-4, 6/18/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <102tttc$316gf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/18/2025 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-17 13:47:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-16 19:20:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========