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 --- Mike EVIDENCE
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:36:23 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 219
Message-ID: <1030eln$3ok69$1@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4> <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> <102um1r$369b2$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:36:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3795b2b31d9ed69cd0c8b5cdd7fda16b";
	logging-data="3952841"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BZQ+AekaUzj8qZCQ7AHEG"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UF0h1eD16xQOtMXeDjyAuUEE0Zg=

On 2025-06-18 15:30:03 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> verified facts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The facts can be easily verified right now if people
>>>>>>> gave me an actual honest review.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
>>>>>>> I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
>>>>>>> on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
>>>>>> observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
>>>>>> that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
>>>>>> be less obvious.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details
>>>>> of how this is not correct:
>>>>> 
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>> 
>>>> I nave, and again in news:102r9op$29abe$1@dont-email.me .
>>> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========