| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0todh$3881i$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 10:51:13 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 171 Message-ID: <v0todh$3881i$2@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> <v0r40q$2hb7o$5@dont-email.me> <v0t3aa$33g49$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 17:51:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f141e693eb79f63ff43fad97c070154"; logging-data="3416114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V8+qWX4lUUlyUFrGd4yzS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:m9bZDerrHrM6GxEDpLKxEA9FjuM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0t3aa$33g49$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 8987 On 5/1/2024 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-30 15:50:50 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/30/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior >> to my creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this >> frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not halting. >> If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops that halt. > > That does not work. If you want to use the term "abnormal termination" > you must first define it. *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW* Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting. > Then you can compare the definitions and try > to determine whether "abnormal termination" implies halting or non-halting > or neither. Note that "halting" is a freature of a Turing machine (a Turing > machine halts or does not halt) but "abnormal termination" seems to be > a feature of a particlar simulation (a simulation of a Truing machine > is or is not abnormally terminated). > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer