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 19:19:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@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 23:19:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2771131"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11843
Lines: 246

On 4/29/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========