Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 6/4/2025 4:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jun.2025 om 21:53 schreef olcott:

On 6/3/2025 7:45 AM, 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).

>
>
If the second call of otherwise infinite recursion had
to be aborted to prevent actual infinite recursion then
this call always was non-halting even when it was forced
to stop running.
>

 But since there is no infinite recursion, no abort is needed.

*You just contradicted yourself*
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)...
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer