Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:58:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 238
Message-ID: <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 20:58:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1280804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TdsAKSUsR183bo9QgcPNM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/ucpWpofSsO5dg9g3/bJR7Mp9N4=
In-Reply-To: <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11041

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.
>>>
>>
>> I insist that people go over every single detail of my reasoning
>> instead of saying "no matter what you say Turing was right therefore
>> you are wrong".
> 
> But since your "reasoning" begins by making dodgy assumptions, people 
> are going to reject that from the start. And then you insist that people 
> start by accepting your dodgy assumptions, with a promise to prove them 
> later. START by proving them, and maybe people will look at your work.
> 
> So far, everything that I have seen you present has been based on the 
> idea that "Turing is wrong and I am right, and I ask you to trust me on 
> by dodgy assumptions".
> 
> Since previously you point blanks said that H, as a Halt Decider was 
> "Correct" as a Halt Decider to return non-halting for H(D,D) even though 
> D(D) halted, and the DEFINITION of H(D,D) was to ask about the behavior 
> of D(D), but "for reasons" the wrong answer was correct because D(D) 
> doesn't always behave the same way when that is counter to the 
> fundamental definitions of Computation Theory.
> 
> It then came out that the reason was that H never was the required 
> computation (since it depended on a hidden input) so you whole proposal 
> was just a lie.
> 
>>
>>> That is the OPPOSITE of "Honest Dialog"
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have spent 20 years doing this and found that this is the only
>>>> possible way to get people to actually validate my actual reasoning
>>>> and not simply ignore my words and leap to the conclusion that I
>>>> must be wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, perhaps you learned that you can get sidetracked, but it is not 
>>> the only way.
>>>
>>> I think your biggest problem that keeps you from getting to where you 
>>> want to get to is not knowing anything about the fields you try to 
>>> talk about.
>>>
>>>> We can go around and around about this until one of us gets
>>>> bored, yet I absolutely will not progress to any other points
>>>> until we have mutual agreement on the current point:
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========