| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0v0i3$3kdu6$4@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 22:16:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 215 Message-ID: <v0v0i3$3kdu6$4@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0todh$3881i$2@dont-email.me> <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 05:16:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="06287be8f659702f6b974b7d726ae873"; logging-data="3815366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1806DX1ZoM4Yu0MLbbqYQhi" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:SdtcqmpVgpg/DB2BX9B6Hpt6GJU= In-Reply-To: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10433 On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========