| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 14:35:04 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 265 Message-ID: <v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me> <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@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 21:35:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236"; logging-data="1298680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zwIjzzdRjMfQyL8o6ch86" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jzRPMh6C8glybVNHhnTHkDFFKRo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 12254 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========