| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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