Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:46:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@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 22:46:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2819823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15314
Lines: 314

On 4/30/24 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========