Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:58:14 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 354 Message-ID: References: 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: 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 ==========