Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric

On 13/05/2025 19:00, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 18:12, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 1:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:

>
Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want to know about.

>
Why?
>
DDD doesn't do anything interesting.

>
I wasn't referring to DDD specifically, but in general.
>
He's claiming *in general* that H(X) is supposed to report on "X simulated by H" instead of the direct execution of X,

 ...where the former is obviously less interesting than the latter. Fair enough.
 <snip>

Right!  PO's defintion of PO-halting (based on what "the simulator" does) makes halting a property of both the input being decided /and/ the machine doing the deciding.
Real halting is a property of just the input being decided, as is required to be the case with any "decision problem" such as HP.  His definition is a total non-starter.  That's before we even point out that an input for HP doesn't even have "its simulator" in general.
Mike.