Re: Definition of real number ℝ --infinitesimal-- --abort decider--

On 4/3/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2024 2:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/04/2024 18:23, Keith Thompson wrote:

"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
[...]

Olcott is unable to understand  what it says in the context of the
real number system, even when spelled out to him in great
detail. Therefore he sticks to his own (wrong) interpretation and then
starts to fight it. Fighting windmills.

>
Might I suggest waiting to reply to olcott until he says something
*new*.  It could save a lot of time and effort.
>

>
My suggestion would be for everyone to decide on a personal "repeat count" to limit saying the same thing to PO indefinitely.  They don't need to reveal that count.
>

 0.333... how many times does the simple fact that an infinite
sequence of repeating decimals never exactly reaches 1/3
before the counter-factual claim that it does is abandoned?

Except that the notation doesn't describe it that way.
Your ignoring how the notation is defined, just makes you are LIAR.

 I don't really care about this what I really want to know is
whether or not an abort decider can bee fooled into making
the wrong abort decision. I can't ever find that out when all
of my reviewers are liars.

For course it can, since it gets the wrong answer for this one.

 01 void D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
02 {
03   H(x, x);
04   return;
05 }
06
07 void main()
08 {
09   H(D,D);
10 }
 *Execution Trace*
Line 09: main() invokes H(D,D);
 *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
 *Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
 As soon as line 03 would be simulated  H sees that D would call
itself with its same input, then H aborts D.
 

Which makes D a Halting Computation, so H didn't *NEED* to abort this D.
If it is ok to abort things that don't NEED to be aborted, then your criteria is just trivial, and worthless, like most of your logic.

 

For example, if everyone set a limit of, say, 73 times - meaning that once they have explained something to PO 73 times that's it, they accept PO will not suddenly understand on the 74th explanation - all these interminably repetitious threads would soon die out!  Well, they might go on for a once-off of a few hundred more posts, but then that's it... There are simply not that many new things to say to PO!
>
Personally I've set my repeat count of around 3 [mostly used up years ago], but 73 would work just as well if people are happy to spend the extra 70 posts.  Currently repetition counts are in the thousands I'd guess.  ????   Yep, I reckon RD at least has said the smae thing to PO many thousands of times.  (Which works fine for RD it has to be said...)
>
Without such a personal repeat count, posters get sucked in to responding by habit saying the same thing while in their hearts they know they're wasting their lives.  Of course people can and will go over their personal limit; it's just a way of encouraging people to take stock of where they are from time to time.
>
Mike.
>