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 10:55:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 293
Message-ID: <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@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 17:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e18070faf38e3938218949b4b017f26c";
	logging-data="2665720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dWfY7zyO9RJTMoItqQtEE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vg3YFaOTTuSu+ukvivL7v98BdIg=
In-Reply-To: <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14542

On 4/30/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/30/24 2:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========