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

On 5/14/2025 5:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.mei.2025 om 22:52 schreef olcott:

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.

 Finite recursive simulation, because the input includes the code to abort.
 

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
HHH(DDD) must evaluate the behavior of its input as if
it never aborted its input. In this case it won't find
any abort code in itself.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer