Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 03. Jun 2025, 21:00:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <101nk9j$7qau$7@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
ZFC found an error in the foundations of set theory and fixed it.

2. POOH is not reproducible (you are all addressing your own imagination).
 What the discussions appear to me is that people are learning the Halting Problem themselves by
'teaching' olcott (I think few can really provide a valid HP proof, even what a proof is).
 
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 Jul 25 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal