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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:25:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$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 11:25:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2721726"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10717
Lines: 218

On 4/28/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/24 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But we weren't talking about the UNDEFINED term of a a Simulating 
>> Termination Analyzer, but about the Halting Theorem.
>>
>> After all, we were talking about the definition of HALTING, and thus 
>> what the two answers mean.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========