| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0umhh$2qov3$1@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 Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 20:25:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v0umhh$2qov3$1@i2pn2.org> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0o87n$1p7s5$1@dont-email.me> <v0oab4$1pbn5$3@dont-email.me> <v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> <v0r40q$2hb7o$5@dont-email.me> <v0rsbu$2m1nf$7@i2pn2.org> <v0sfrs$2varu$2@dont-email.me> <v0t8ob$2p3ri$3@i2pn2.org> <v0tqer$38pmi$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 00:25:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2974691"; 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: <v0tqer$38pmi$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13488 Lines: 299 On 5/1/24 12:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/1/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/1/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========