| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.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 15:25:24 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> References: <v0k4jc$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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:25:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2642991"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 11390 Lines: 245 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. >>>> >>> >>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========