| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 13:27:13 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 131 Message-ID: <v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0o87n$1p7s5$1@dont-email.me> <v0oab4$1pbn5$3@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 12:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9138a54d7bbff53ed72a1e2df96d9066"; logging-data="2538694"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/Kx9sgqhFc82lVF39zS1c" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Y/ODIvV8bE2HbgFNd7udBanPDU= Bytes: 6972 On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means >> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite >> number of steps. >> > > Wrong answer. The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer, just commented. > computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it > enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234) > > [5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. > Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320) That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same as the definition I proposed. -- Mikko