XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/23/2025 5:40 PM, dbush wrote:   
   > On 10/23/2025 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 10/22/2025 6:01 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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/.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The finite string as an actual input to HHH(DD)   
   >   
   > i.e. finite string DD which is the description of machine DD and   
   > therefore is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of the   
   > described machine, including halting when executed directly.   
   >   
   >> *does not have the halting property*   
   >   
   > False, see above.>   
   >> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   >> from their finite string inputs   
   >   
   > And the finite string input DD has the halting property as show above.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   >> from their finite string inputs   
   >>   
   >> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   >> from their finite string inputs   
   >>   
   >> The DD that has the halting property   
   >   
   > i.e. finite string DD which is an input to HH   
   >   
   >> is not an input   
   > False, see above.   
      
   Correct simulation is defined as simulation   
   according to the semantics of the specification   
   language: C, x86 or TM description.   
      
   The execution trace of DD correctly simulated   
   by HHH differs from the execution trace of   
   DD correctly simulated HHH1 proving that I   
   am right and you are stupid or dishonest.   
      
   --   
   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)