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 15:36:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@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 19:36:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2642990"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8495
Lines: 166

On 4/28/24 3:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 2:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/24 2:52 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning.
>>> Do you believe:
>>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason.
>>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state.
>>> (c) Neither.
>>>
>>
>> In Computation Theory, which is the context of the discussion, Halting 
>> means reaching a final state.
>>
>> The key is that NOT HALTING, means that the machine does NOT reach a 
>> final state after an unbounded number of steps of operation.
>>
>> An aborted simulation does not determine, by itself, if the machine 
>> being simulated is halting or not. This seems to be a fact you don't 
>> understand.
>>
>> Halting is strictly a property of the direct execution of the machine, 
>> or things that are actually proven to be equivalent, like the 
>> (unaborted) simulation by a UTM.
> 
> OK that is complete agreement with my correct understanding of the 
> conventional notion of halting.
> 
> When we come up with a brand new idea such as a simulating termination
> analyzer that simulates its input until it matches a non halting
> behavior pattern your notion of halting simply ignores this altogether.
> 

Nope, it means that a correct "non-halting behavior pattern" will be a 
pattern that when seen in the simulation means that unconditionally the 
program, when directly run or simulated by an actual UTM, will not halt, 
per the definition.

One of these patterns would be if the simulated program reaches an EXACT 
copy of a previous state of the program, as would happen with an 
infinite loop.

These can detect MANY (but not all) non-halting programs.

The Turing Proof shows that there is not a finite listing of non-halting 
patterns that will match ALL non-halting simulations.

The key point is that it doesn't allow your "logic" of changing the 
decider and at the same time the machine described by the input to show 
that no H could simulate this to a final state. The input IS the fixed 
alogrithm of the input.

Yes, we can mentally imagine giving the input to a UTM instead of H, and 
askling if it will halt. The key is that doesn't change what H the input 
calls, it still calls the original H that you will ultimately try to 
claim gives the correct answer.

If that H aborts and returns, then the UTM will see that are reach the 
halting state.