Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:58:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 354
Message-ID: <v0r4em$2hb7o$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me> <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0m91k$2gl1e$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m9bt$17k7o$4@dont-email.me> <v0mkrq$2hf3s$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n5tj$1hdqe$1@dont-email.me> <v0o022$2j1tu$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0obm0$1q3aq$1@dont-email.me> <v0p9tv$2ki5r$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q13d$29thh$1@dont-email.me> <v0qlbg$2m1nf$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:58:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e18070faf38e3938218949b4b017f26c";
	logging-data="2665720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19de4eVNSZLsHNqc7n8v/KF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IE+ruKWtsfedlsKPgj/pvtgqMD4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0qlbg$2m1nf$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 18013

On 4/30/2024 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/30/24 1:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/29/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term decider*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term decider*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term decider*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term decider*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the terms apply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying is to use the standard terminology, and start 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with what people will accept and move to what is harder 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want them to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because what you speak is non-sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on you making up things and trying to form 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifications for them, just makes people unwilling to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what might 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its structures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "terms of the art"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I perfectly agree with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive notion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. given an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding output. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Function", as Turing Proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people here may not know that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Turing proved or did not prove requires carefully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examining every tiny step and not simply leaping to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that Turing was right therefore I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing PROVED he was right with a rigorous proof that has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been examined by many people and no errors found.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just admitted that you have been working under wrong 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, and have no grounds to claim you understand 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all (or any) of what you talk about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else is wrong, just after admitting that you have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been wrong for most of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but then seem to explicitly go on a tack that will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force you to waste time by needing to return to your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prior points when you change the definition and prove 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only interested in an actual honest dialogue. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of this I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must insist that any dialogue must go through every 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single detail of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my reasoning one tiny nuance of a point at time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, why do you insist that people must do it YOUR way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========