Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Wed, 1 May 2024 22:29:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 491
Message-ID: <v0v1bc$3kdu6$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0r4em$2hb7o$7@dont-email.me> <v0rsbp$2m1nf$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0sfdn$2varu$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8nt$2p3ri$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tp98$3881i$4@dont-email.me> <v0ung6$2qov3$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 05:29:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="06287be8f659702f6b974b7d726ae873";
	logging-data="3815366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+z+9uXRKJcuQiMN8czmsz2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bF+8Mq/yo+jSE4BrtZew7/kDc2Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0ung6$2qov3$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 24627

On 5/1/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========