Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:20:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <v0oab4$1pbn5$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0o87n$1p7s5$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 16:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895";
	logging-data="1879781"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zMy9Wee/CauijwlugJ2Ag"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NUJqoPUJcxzr5vwkfPE6sz53kW8=
In-Reply-To: <v0o87n$1p7s5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7324

On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means
> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite
> number of steps.
> 

Wrong answer.
computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters 
a final state” (Linz:1990:234)

[5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. 
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)

Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

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