Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me>
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 ==========