Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:55:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <35d52f0bbaf7e94f0fa9820d750d42df28f18672@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:55:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="85611"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102cdon$23jal$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/11/25 1:18 PM, 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========