Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

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)
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 Problem themselves by
'teaching' olcott (I think few can really provide a valid HP proof, even what a proof is).