XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 6:15 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Thus proving that DD correctly simulated by HHH   
   >> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt   
   >> state no matter what HHH does.   
   >   
   > I explained that a nested simulation tower is two dimensional.   
   >   
   > One dimension is the simulation level, the nesting itself;   
   > that goes out to infinity.   
      
   Great. Thus the input to HHH(DD) specifies behavior   
   such that the correctly simulated DD cannot possibly   
   reach its own simulated final halt state.   
      
   *The above point is the only relevant point to my proof*   
      
   We need to proceed from this one point to the next points   
   that are semantically entailed from this one point then   
   we have my whole proof.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)