| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0qgoh$2ddfa$1@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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:22:09 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 304 Message-ID: <v0qgoh$2ddfa$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me> <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0m91k$2gl1e$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m9bt$17k7o$4@dont-email.me> <v0mkrq$2hf3s$3@i2pn2.org> <v0n5tj$1hdqe$1@dont-email.me> <v0o022$2j1tu$1@i2pn2.org> <v0obm0$1q3aq$1@dont-email.me> <v0p9tv$2ki5r$7@i2pn2.org> <v0q13d$29thh$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:22:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9138a54d7bbff53ed72a1e2df96d9066"; logging-data="2536938"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19izFoaa8r6eL5hpoVM9czJ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:aD4UCDkwjJVH97z3rReYoV1efpM= Bytes: 16550 On 2024-04-30 05:54:51 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/29/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/29/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/29/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/28/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:58 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What Turing proved or did not prove requires carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> examining every tiny step and not simply leaping to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that Turing was right therefore I am wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Turing PROVED he was right with a rigorous proof that has been examined >>>>>>>>>>>> by many people and no errors found. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You just admitted that you have been working under wrong definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>> and have no grounds to claim you understand all (or any) of what you >>>>>>>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right and everyone >>>>>>>>>>>> else is wrong, just after admitting that you have been wrong for most >>>>>>>>>>>> of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, but then seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly go on a tack that will force you to waste time by needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return to your prior points when you change the definition and prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only interested in an actual honest dialogue. Because of this I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must insist that any dialogue must go through every single detail of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my reasoning one tiny nuance of a point at time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, why do you insist that people must do it YOUR way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I insist that people go over every single detail of my reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of saying "no matter what you say Turing was right therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But since your "reasoning" begins by making dodgy assumptions, people >>>>>>>>>>>> are going to reject that from the start. And then you insist that >>>>>>>>>>>> people start by accepting your dodgy assumptions, with a promise to >>>>>>>>>>>> prove them later. START by proving them, and maybe people will look at >>>>>>>>>>>> your work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So far, everything that I have seen you present has been based on the >>>>>>>>>>>> idea that "Turing is wrong and I am right, and I ask you to trust me on >>>>>>>>>>>> by dodgy assumptions". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since previously you point blanks said that H, as a Halt Decider was >>>>>>>>>>>> "Correct" as a Halt Decider to return non-halting for H(D,D) even >>>>>>>>>>>> though D(D) halted, and the DEFINITION of H(D,D) was to ask about the >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D), but "for reasons" the wrong answer was correct >>>>>>>>>>>> because D(D) doesn't always behave the same way when that is counter to >>>>>>>>>>>> the fundamental definitions of Computation Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It then came out that the reason was that H never was the required >>>>>>>>>>>> computation (since it depended on a hidden input) so you whole proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> was just a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the OPPOSITE of "Honest Dialog" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have spent 20 years doing this and found that this is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible way to get people to actually validate my actual reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not simply ignore my words and leap to the conclusion that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, perhaps you learned that you can get sidetracked, but it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your biggest problem that keeps you from getting to where you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get to is not knowing anything about the fields you try to talk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========