| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:07:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 260 Message-ID: <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 08:07:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e18070faf38e3938218949b4b017f26c"; logging-data="2428865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6K6SS9IQIUoAsihWBNban" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:UlpSWUI4IfAFzwtBjKRqh6sZxrc= In-Reply-To: <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12662 On 4/29/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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 ==========