Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 14:48:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1298680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Ws7d57+NkiKmNMfRaWg+5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g7QqwgZAn9XUK2LQyeJa0t6GqGc=
In-Reply-To: <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8170

On 4/28/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Show me anywhere in the conventional terms of the art where
a simulating termination analyzer is defined exactly that way.



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer