| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0o022$2j1tu$1@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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:24:49 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v0o022$2j1tu$1@i2pn2.org> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0m91k$2gl1e$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m9bt$17k7o$4@dont-email.me> <v0mkrq$2hf3s$3@i2pn2.org> <v0n5tj$1hdqe$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:24:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2721726"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v0n5tj$1hdqe$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 15733 Lines: 337 On 4/28/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/28/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/28/2024 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/28/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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". >>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========