Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 01:59:35 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <e35c1e94a1e55c9622cfedf88d401148e851f2a1.camel@gmail.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:59:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7da9effe280984976ceeaac46095ada5";
	logging-data="176528"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VMiTkdnQ/+c31tLh7Czqb"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y2DJv6O7BTilmMaJZyJKW+GGO0M=
In-Reply-To: <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3947

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 positi=
on, PO can (will) just
> > > invent=20
> > > new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in o=
rder to somehow justify his
> > > busted intuitions.
> >=20
> > My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though=
 it looks like it does:
> >=20
> >=20
> > On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
> > =C2=A0> The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits norm=
ally.
> > =C2=A0> BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED=
,
> > =C2=A0> Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
> > =C2=A0> a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
> > =C2=A0> then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it d=
oes).
>=20
> Right - magical thinking.
>=20
> PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the multip=
le levels involved.=C2=A0 In his
> head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why P=
O does not /realise/ that=20
> he can't think his way through it?
>=20
> When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it.=
=C2=A0 Somehow PO tries, gets into
> a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond that =
of everybody else, due to=20
> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the pl=
anet, and my ability to=20
> eliminate extraneous complexity".=C2=A0 How did PO ever start down this p=
ath of delusions?=C2=A0 Not that that
> matters one iota... :)
>=20
>=20
> Mike.

People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement of POOH, but it d=
oes not matter how=C2=A0
H or D are implemented, because:

1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical connection)
2. POOH is not reproducible (you are all addressing your own imagination).

What the discussions appear to me is that people are learning the Halting P=
roblem themselves=C2=A0by
'teaching' olcott (I think few can really provide a valid HP proof, even wh=
at a proof is).