| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Wed, 1 May 2024 07:23:53 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org> <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:23:53 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2920306"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 15778 Lines: 311 On 4/30/24 11:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========