Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:30:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <62724623dc50df3ba76d01242cc437c19d388705@i2pn2.org>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me>
 <d8d7c46fe2728e5481a504e6edacc8fd0fea5285@i2pn2.org>
 <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me> <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fbth$173bb$13@dont-email.me> <101fcgj$19e5f$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fia9$1cj4h$1@dont-email.me> <101fl5a$1dfmq$1@dont-email.me>
 <101fvok$1gaq8$1@dont-email.me> <101g68s$1i7tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <101g7ph$1iik6$1@dont-email.me> <101gaht$1j464$1@dont-email.me>
 <101ghl0$1p48p$1@dont-email.me> <101gjb3$1p7o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <101hsdt$2806l$1@dont-email.me> <101lodi$3pbm3$1@dont-email.me>
 <101mqoh$2ji$1@dont-email.me> <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <101njbr$7qau$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:35:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3190762"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <101njbr$7qau$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3151
Lines: 40

On 6/3/25 3:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/3/2025 10:38 AM, 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.
>>
> 
> Like I said until you pay enough attention it may seem
> that way. I know that I am correct because I can see
> all of the details of a semantic tautology.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
> 
> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
> 

But since your "tautology' is based on lying, it isn't really a tautology.