Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:18 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 12:14 PM, wij wrote:

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 11:14 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 10:58 AM, wij wrote:

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:
 

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.

 
So, you are saying the Halting Problem is ridiculous?
 

 
Show how any function could report on the behavior
of its caller and your failure will prove that I am
correct.

 
No. You are right that not all functions can report on the behavior
of its caller. But that is what the HP proof suggests.

 
No it does not suggest this.

 
Yes, it does, see latter.
 

The issue is that no one
ever bothered to specify ALL of the details of the HP
proof to see that a halt decider is required to report
on the behavior of its caller. That is why I resorted
to the C language that can show 100% of every single
detail.

 
You don't understand what the HP says.
The HP simply EQUIVALENTLY asks for such H that "H(D)==1 iff D() halts".
 
Note that I say 'equivalently' is because it is too technical for you to understand.
You are learning by rote. All the function form of HP are easier for teaching purpose.
 

You are admitting the HP is correct, and provide POOH claiming the
HP proof is incorrect!
 

 
That the HP proof requires a halt decider to report on
the behavior of its caller is flat out nuts proving
that this aspect of the HP proof is complete nonsense.

 
The HP simply EQUIVALENTLY asks for such H that "H(D)==1 iff D() halts".
 

 
and no one bothered to notice that this
requires H to report on the behavior of its caller
 
void D()
{
    H(D);
    return;
}
 
 
int main()
{
    D(); // calls H(D)
}
 

What D does is not H's concern.
 

 
H(D) is required to report on the behavior that
its input specifies.
 
Invoked H(D) simulates D that calls H(D)
that simulates D that calls H(D)
that simulates D that calls H(D)
that simulates D that calls H(D)
that simulates D that calls H(D)...

 
 
Yes, the D() above looks like a infinite recursive call.
 
Other people or you are seemingly pointing to D and talking something else.
 

 
Yes all other people (especially Dennis Bush) are saying
that H(D) is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D() never noticing that this stupidly
requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its caller.

If the H above means the H that the HP refers to. The H is required to
report its argument's behavior (ie. by H(D)). But NOT required by simulation.
The HP does not care what D does (simply to say).

The HP only requires: H(D)==1 iff D() halts