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

On 5/13/2025 1:20 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

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

The input being decided by HHH(DD) includes DD
calling its own emulator in recursive simulation.
The input being decided by HHH1(DD) DOES NOT INCLUDE
DD calling its own emulator in recursive simulation.

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.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer