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 23:50:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0v2i3$2qov3$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0uvj5$3kdu6$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 03:50:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2974691"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0uvj5$3kdu6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 25737
Lines: 537

On 5/1/24 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========