| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:51:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 235 Message-ID: <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org> <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895"; logging-data="1903962"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XQJ2WJ+k75rsAmK44ZxaK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mQVreOuRMbDiA+w2U/bC2HVLpng= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 11533 On 4/29/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========