Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!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 18:25:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aab17c214568c540974050c555ea65d063b9fb77@i2pn2.org>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101os21$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>
 <2e40a87aeb9e28ce23b5ebf3fcbf23dad6728a9b.camel@gmail.com>
 <102cg6f$246h5$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 22:25:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="112831"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <102cg6f$246h5$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/11/25 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2025 12:24 PM, wij wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========