| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0ung6$2qov3$5@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 20:41:42 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v0ung6$2qov3$5@i2pn2.org> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m681$172p4$3@dont-email.me> <v0m7r4$2gl1f$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m8d8$17k7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0m91k$2gl1e$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m9bt$17k7o$4@dont-email.me> <v0mkrq$2hf3s$3@i2pn2.org> <v0n5tj$1hdqe$1@dont-email.me> <v0o022$2j1tu$1@i2pn2.org> <v0obm0$1q3aq$1@dont-email.me> <v0p9tv$2ki5r$7@i2pn2.org> <v0q13d$29thh$1@dont-email.me> <v0qlbg$2m1nf$2@i2pn2.org> <v0r4em$2hb7o$7@dont-email.me> <v0rsbp$2m1nf$5@i2pn2.org> <v0sfdn$2varu$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8nt$2p3ri$1@i2pn2.org> <v0tp98$3881i$4@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 00:41:42 -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: <v0tp98$3881i$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 23288 Lines: 467 On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/1/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/1/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/30/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/30/2024 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/30/24 1:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/29/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:58 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Turing proved or did not prove requires carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examining every tiny step and not simply leaping to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion that Turing was right therefore I am wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing PROVED he was right with a rigorous proof that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been examined by many people and no errors found. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just admitted that you have been working under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong definitions, and have no grounds to claim you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all (or any) of what you talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and everyone else is wrong, just after admitting that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have been wrong for most of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========