Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: wij Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:58:47 +0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 257 Message-ID: <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.camel@gmail.com> 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> <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf8b8c9575553bac70d62eb9d0221f21"; logging-data="2125524"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HDP/D4e3JhzQ3Rrz/kS0M" User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42) Cancel-Lock: sha1:dO7fjCURSkcUxcnYOWUeusi3r0g= In-Reply-To: <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me> 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: > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said: > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott sa= id: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Terr= y wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if presented with /direc= t observations/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradicting his position, P= O can (will) just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new magical thinking that onl= y he is smart enough to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand, in order to someh= ow justify his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > busted intuitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My favorite is that the directl= y 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=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> The d= irectly executed D(D) reaches a final state and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exits normally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> BECAU= SE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BEEN ABORTED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> Thus = meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> a com= putation must be aborted to prevent its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > execution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0> then = this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like it does). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right - magical thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PO simply cannot clearly think th= rough what's going on, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to the multiple levels involv= ed.=C2=A0 In his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head they all become a mush of co= nfustions, but the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mystery here is why PO does not /= realise/ that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he can't think his way through it= ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I try something that's beyon= d me, I soon realise I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not up to it. =C2=A0Somehow PO tr= ies, gets into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a total muddle, and concludes "My= understanding of this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goes beyond that of everybody els= e, due to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my powers of unrivalved concentra= tion equalled by almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nobody on the planet, and my abil= ity to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eliminate extraneous complexity".= =C2=A0 How did PO ever start > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > down this path of delusions?=C2= =A0 Not that that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matters one iota... :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People seem to keep addressing the = logic of the implement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of POOH, but it does not matter how > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > H or D are implemented, because: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. POOH is not about the Halting Pr= oblem (no logical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connection) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise ZFC was not about what is no= w called naive set theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To a large extent it is. Both are inten= ded to describe those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were tought to be usefult to think abou= t. But the naive set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory failed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because it is inconsistent. However, ZF= excludes some sets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people want to consider, e.g., the univ= ersal set, Quine's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > atom. There is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no agreement whether do not satisfy the= axiom of choice and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its various > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences should be included or excl= uded, so both ZF and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZFC are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quine's atom is nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not. It is a set that one can ass= ume to exist or not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine= _atoms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the same as every person that is their = own father. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not the same. Being of ones own fathe= r is impossible > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the say the material world works. Imaginary = things like sets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagined to work wichever way one wants to imag= ine, though a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consitent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagination is more useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that was true then one could imagine the > > > > > > > > > > > > > coherent set of properties of a square circle. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set= of properties of > > > > > > > > > > > > an impossible decider. > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > *CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NO= ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========