Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 23:54:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0v2ot$2qov3$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0umhh$2qov3$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0v0a5$3kdu6$3@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 03:54:05 -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: <v0v0a5$3kdu6$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 13034
Lines: 269

On 5/1/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========