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 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: References: 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: 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 ==========