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 ==========