Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:08:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:08:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2625826"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3817
Lines: 64

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.

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.

Of course, the likely answer is that you DON'T plan to go back and 
reshow those points, but just try to convince people that the change in 
meaning between the two sides of the arguement doesn't matter.