| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0vkmt$3ool4$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 12:00:13 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 354 Message-ID: <v0vkmt$3ool4$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0qgoh$2ddfa$1@dont-email.me> <v0r3nn$2hb7o$4@dont-email.me> <v0t41t$33kt6$1@dont-email.me> <v0tovq$3881i$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 11:00:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fa4ea0fc99783f48072d8d9fcad208f5"; logging-data="3957412"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WTXNTFWfqQvbBKzmi0Nmd" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:uWHH7HsiOotqDGJZmoSC4gdOqPo= Bytes: 19642 On 2024-05-01 16:00:57 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/1/2024 5:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-30 15:45:59 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/30/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-30 05:54:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just admitted that you have been working under wrong definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have no grounds to claim you understand all (or any) of what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right and everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is wrong, just after admitting that you have been wrong for most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, but then seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly go on a tack that will force you to waste time by needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return to your prior points when you change the definition and prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only interested in an actual honest dialogue. Because of this I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must insist that any dialogue must go through every single detail of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my reasoning one tiny nuance of a point at time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, why do you insist that people must do it YOUR way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I insist that people go over every single detail of my reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of saying "no matter what you say Turing was right therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since your "reasoning" begins by making dodgy assumptions, people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to reject that from the start. And then you insist that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people start by accepting your dodgy assumptions, with a promise to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove them later. START by proving them, and maybe people will look at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far, everything that I have seen you present has been based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that "Turing is wrong and I am right, and I ask you to trust me on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by dodgy assumptions". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since previously you point blanks said that H, as a Halt Decider was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correct" as a Halt Decider to return non-halting for H(D,D) even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though D(D) halted, and the DEFINITION of H(D,D) was to ask about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D), but "for reasons" the wrong answer was correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because D(D) doesn't always behave the same way when that is counter to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fundamental definitions of Computation Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It then came out that the reason was that H never was the required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation (since it depended on a hidden input) so you whole proposal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was just a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the OPPOSITE of "Honest Dialog" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have spent 20 years doing this and found that this is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible way to get people to actually validate my actual reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not simply ignore my words and leap to the conclusion that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========