XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:   
   >>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague   
   >>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math   
   >>>>>>> phobia.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that   
   >>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future   
   >>>>>> states.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on   
   >>>> your   
   >>>> own psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject   
   >>>>> is closed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Whaaat ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com   
   >>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated   
   >>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,   
   >>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.   
   >>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,   
   >>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;   
   >>>> it is completely uncontroversial.   
   >>>   
   >>> I really did figure out how to determine the   
   >>> correct halt status that the halting problem's   
   >>> counter-example input specifies to it decider.   
   >>   
   >> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine   
   >> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the   
   >> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting   
   >> problem.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about   
      
   Whether a Turing machine exists that can determine whether any arbitrary   
   Turing machine when given any arbitrary input will halt when executed   
   directly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)