Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- Mike EVIDENCE Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:53:22 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 179 Message-ID: <102rdui$2a9fd$1@dont-email.me> References: <101hsdt$2806l$1@dont-email.me> <101lodi$3pbm3$1@dont-email.me> <101mqoh$2ji$1@dont-email.me> <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me> <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> <102e21p$2ipl5$1@dont-email.me> <102er6u$2ohps$4@dont-email.me> <102h3gg$3e0g0$1@dont-email.me> <102hgi3$3gqbm$4@dont-email.me> <102jm6c$5f8r$1@dont-email.me> <102ju9i$793t$2@dont-email.me> <102m5ia$r98h$1@dont-email.me> <102mpib$uef9$15@dont-email.me> <102ov42$1jli0$1@dont-email.me> <102pqpi$1r1h4$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:53:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="decef82e5e879cee5f938534695a2afb"; logging-data="2434541"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NGaoXkJPmqI5aFUBqwzcU" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:0l6lwOsmA9dCV6gInBtcUMQ883E= On 2025-06-16 19:20:17 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT >>>>>>>>>>> MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A web-page is not a permanent archive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web >>>>>>>> page as long as you need it for usenet discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead. >>>>>>> A web-page will not work for this. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were >>>>>> on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens >>>>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they >>>>>> see there. >>>>> >>>>> Everything that I said is a verified fact. >>>> >>>> You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be >>>> verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not >>>> verified facts. >>> >>> The facts can be easily verified right now if people >>> gave me an actual honest review. >> >> Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death. >> >>> Instead of any honest review people are so sure that >>> I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration >>> on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying. >> >> You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that >> observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of >> that observation for those potential readers whom the error may >> be less obvious. > > No one has ever even attempted to show the details > of how this is not correct: > > void DDD() > { > HHH(DDD); > return; > } > > When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly > simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH > then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its > simulated "return" statement final halt state. I nave, and again in news:102r9op$29abe$1@dont-email.me . -- Mikko