Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:29:55 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 190 Message-ID: <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me> References: <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> <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> <102c5nb$21qj7$2@dont-email.me> <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:29:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5844607f8c5789cdff36a135feed3c9"; logging-data="2169466"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FcGfvSbsoH7NRk8vvS7Kf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZJ1OStLnwtbHYdA+H1sNuEm/kwc= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250611-2, 6/11/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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* because >>>>>> this input specifies that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* >>>>> >>>>> Sounds perfect for me (but like others: you may have posted "1+2=3" >>>>> , or various tautology, as proof that your POOH is correct). >>>>> No, all such are irrelevant. >>>>> HP asks for "THE H" that decide the halting property of its argument. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior. >>>> >>>> int main() >>>> { >>>>     DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) >>>> } >>>> >>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require HHH(DDD) >>>> to report on the behavior of the direct execution >>>> of DDD() because this DDD() *IS ITS CALLER* >>>> and not its input. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========