Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- Mike EVIDENCE

Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:21 schreef olcott:

On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2025 om 16:47 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2025 5:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:

On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:

On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort.

>
A web-page is not a permanent archive.

>
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.

>
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.

>
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were
on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens
to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they
see there.

>
Everything that I said is a verified fact.

>
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be
verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not
verified facts.

>
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.

>
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death.
>

Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.

>
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
>

>
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:

>
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do not see do not exist.
>

>
I ignore most of your messages.

>
Yes, that is what I said. Closing your eyes and pretend that they do not exist. Very childish.
>

>
I stop at your first counter-factual statement.

>
Because you could not find evidence for your claim. So, you close your eyes and pretend without evidence that the are counter factual. Very childish.
>

>
No one here can manage to pay 100% complete attention
to one single point so I reiterate the same single
point ever and over until they get it.

>
We did, but you preferred to ignore them. Closing your eyes and pretend that our arguments do not exist. Very childish.
>

>
When they try to dodge this point by changing the
subject I ignore this dodge and get back to the
original point.

>
You don't understand the corrections pointed out to you,

 All of these "corrections" have been counter-factual.

Closing your eyes for facts, does not make these facts disappear. Thinking that would be childish.

I point out exactly how they are counter-factual
and my reviewers always ignore this and repeat their
counter-factual rebuttal.

You never showed any facts. You only repeated your dreams as facts.

 

so you close your eyes by saying that they change the subject and pretend that they do not exist. Very childish.
>
>

My claim is that each of the above functions correctly
simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly
exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.
Can you affirm or correctly refute this?

The words 'correctly simulated' makes this a vacuous statement, because it has been proven that no such HHH exists.
It makes no sense to affirm or refute a vacuous claim.
All HHH that try to simulate them selves (whether they abort or not) fail to reach the point where they can see the behaviour specified in the input.
That you do not understand something does not make your stupid. But the resistance against learning from errors pointed out to your, do.