Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 01:24:41 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 348
Message-ID: <2e40a87aeb9e28ce23b5ebf3fcbf23dad6728a9b.camel@gmail.com>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
	 <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>
	 <22806dcceb8dbd965792253ecfde0a7f4dc5c793.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c4g1$20jl4$12@dont-email.me>
	 <b27d3b8f4040ac88721a7b772f675f9e1cbb2c03.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c5nb$21qj7$2@dont-email.me>
	 <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me>
	 <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102ca1c$22pmt$1@dont-email.me>
	 <85f876c4db96fb776dabc80c4208feed6aabc76d.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102cdon$23jal$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:24:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf8b8c9575553bac70d62eb9d0221f21";
	logging-data="2216240"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UYprgt9FzSkZKoctFaBs3"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tuLYKqX7zO+iJtP5mx+YsDpjUX4=
In-Reply-To: <102cdon$23jal$1@dont-email.me>

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:18 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2025 12:14 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 11:14 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2025 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 6/11/2025 10:11 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 10:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 9:45 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 09:40 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 9:36 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 09:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott sa=
id:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcot=
t said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, o=
lcott said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wro=
te:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38=
 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbus=
h wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, M=
ike Terry wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if presented wit=
h /direct observations/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradicting his pos=
ition, PO can (will) just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new magical thinking =
that only he is smart
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enough to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand, in order =
to somehow justify his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > busted intuitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My favorite is that the=
 directly executed D(D)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > halt even though it loo=
ks like it does:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/24/24 19:18, olcot=
t wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> The directly executed D(D) reaches a final
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > state and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits normally.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > COMPUTATION
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HAS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BEEN ABORTED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> Thus meeting the correct non-halting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > criteria
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> a computation must be aborted to prevent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > execution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like it does).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right - magical thinking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PO simply cannot clearly =
think through what's going
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to the multiple level=
s involved.=C2=A0 In his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head they all become a mu=
sh of confustions, but the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mystery here is why PO do=
es not /realise/ that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he can't think his way th=
rough it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I try something that=
's beyond me, I soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > realise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not up to it. =C2=A0Someh=
ow PO tries, gets into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a total muddle, and concl=
udes "My understanding of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes beyond that of every=
body else, due to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my powers of unrivalved c=
oncentration equalled by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nobody on the planet, and=
 my ability to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eliminate extraneous comp=
lexity".=C2=A0 How did PO ever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > down this path of delusio=
ns?=C2=A0 Not that that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matters one iota... :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People seem to keep address=
ing the logic of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of POOH, but it does not ma=
tter how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H or D are implemented, bec=
ause:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. POOH is not about the Ha=
lting Problem (no logical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connection)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise ZFC was not about wh=
at is now called naive set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To a large extent it is. Both a=
re intended to describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were tought to be usefult to th=
ink about. But the naive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory failed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because it is inconsistent. How=
ever, 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 sat=
isfy the axiom of choice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its various
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences should be included=
 or excluded, so both ZF
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========