XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Repeat of previously refuted point:   
      
   On 10/22/2025 8:14 PM, dbush wrote:   
    > On 10/22/2025 7:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
    >> Great. Thus the input to HHH(DD)   
    >   
    > i.e. finite string DD which is the description of machine DD i.e. 
   
    > and therefore stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine   
    > DD including the fact that it halts when executed directly.   
    >   
    >> specifies behavior   
    >> such that the correctly simulated DD   
    >   
    > i.e. UTM(DD)   
    >   
    >> cannot possibly   
    >> reach its own simulated final halt state.   
    >   
    > False, as proven by UTM(DD) halting.   
      
   This constitutes your admission that:   
   1) the prior refutation is correct   
   2) the point you are responding to is correct   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)