Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v0v3md$3l29l$7@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 23:09:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 526 Message-ID: <v0v3md$3l29l$7@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <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> <v0ung6$2qov3$5@i2pn2.org> <v0v1bc$3kdu6$7@dont-email.me> <v0v33d$2qov3$13@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 06:09:51 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="06287be8f659702f6b974b7d726ae873"; logging-data="3836213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PbGTsSgDH9omSGz/gs/uR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KvWN6hdMymr8VVUCoCgMiWE8yCE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v0v33d$2qov3$13@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 26678 On 5/1/2024 10:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/1/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/1/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========