XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 10/22/2025 3:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 2:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, André G  Isaak  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >>>>>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp that the   
   >>>>> "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   >>>>> description of HHH.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Furthermore, he doesn't get that it doesn't literally have to be HHH,   
   >>>> but the same algorithm: a workalike.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The HHH analyzing DD's halting could be in C, while the HHH   
   >>>> called by DD could be in Python.   
   >>>   
   >>> DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation   
   >>> and you try to get away with lying about it.   
   >>   
   >> I'm saying that's not a requirement in the halting problem.   
   >>   
   >> DD does not have to use that implementation of HHH; it can have   
   >> its own clean-room implementation and it can be in any language.   
   >>   
   >> But nonetheless, yes, there will still be a nested simulation tower.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I made sure to read what you said all the way through   
   > this time. DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly   
   > reach its own final halt state no matter what HHH does.   
      
   The /simulation/ of DD by HHH will not /reproduce/ the halt   
   state of DD, which DD undeniably /has/.   
      
   DD specifies a procedure that transitions to a terminating state,   
   whether any given simulation of it is carried far enough to show that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)