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

On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 19:20 +0100, 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 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.

The HP is not asking any human to answer whether D halts or not, but asking a
TM to answer by taking D as its argument.

olcott is insisting that he can 'spot' D is non-halting (and no one else can
see), and the HP proof is so refuted.
void D() {
 D();       // or H(D) because of 'simulation'
}

So, the rests stories are talks that how POOH is valid and the HP is refuted.
I am a bit surprised people react exactly the same (all kind of fabrication
possible) when confronting my proposal that repeating decimals are irrational!!!