Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

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.

 

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.
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.
 

Nope, perhaps you learned that you can get sidetracked, but it is not the only way.
I think your biggest problem that keeps you from getting to where you want to get to is not knowing anything about the fields you try to talk about.

We can go around and around about this until one of us gets
bored, yet I absolutely will not progress to any other points
until we have mutual agreement on the current point:
 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
 Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.

And, until you actually DEFINE the terms I have asked about, we can go no farther. I can not "agree" to something that has poorly defined words in it.
For instance, how can "whether or not H aborts its simulation" have any meaning for what you have defined H to be, since H is a single program, and that will always do what it is programmed to do.
It is a trivial statement to say that H's simulation of D will not reach line 3 because it is a simple fact that H aborted its simulation before it got there. It is hard to define "Correctness" when the problem is that trivial, IF a machine aborts its simulation it is correct, because that simulation never got to the end.
You WANT to try to imagine some other program being a proof that this one was correct, but your definitions and wording just get in your way.
Your logic seems to be based on H being both a single program and also a poorly defined set of programs (as it its input), and thus you premise is based on logical incongruity.
Also, your whole argument will eventually fail, due to the strawman you built, your D is NOT built precisely to the definition of the proof, and you logic is actually trying to exploit that difference, so it can't just be argued that they are equivalent.

 

Of course, the likely answer is that you DON'T plan to go back and reshow those points, but just try to convince people that the change in meaning between the two sides of the arguement doesn't matter.