Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 6/3/2025 10:38 AM, 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.
 

Like I said until you pay enough attention it may seem
that way. I know that I am correct because I can see
all of the details of a semantic tautology.
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*
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer