Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 23:02:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 561
Message-ID: <v0v390$3l29l$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <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> <v0v2i3$2qov3$7@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 06:02:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="06287be8f659702f6b974b7d726ae873";
	logging-data="3836213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uvwzPAa7XD003Nb/m4Pzn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qi20fhmpvwnhrP1ccpACaYRklVg=
In-Reply-To: <v0v2i3$2qov3$7@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 27008

On 5/1/2024 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 ==========