Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---x86 code is a liar? Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:55 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 399 Message-ID: References: <1ee05647789dbaab013f1194411ff373e45a463e@i2pn2.org> <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org> <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org> <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org> <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 05:39:56 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cf051fb5fa2cddab5c252c15e56daec"; logging-data="2657304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IG9fJBaUCtCKJ0ZRqfuKC" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ElKBPGJEWDPYcxAS3b96LkJjBXE= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241106-12, 11/6/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 18938 On 11/6/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/6/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/24 8:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2024 5:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/5/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 12:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 7:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What would an unbounded emulation do? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep on emulating for an unbounded number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something you don't seem to understand as part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the requirements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting isn't just did reach a final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some finite number of steps, but that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will NEVER reach a final state even if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process an unbounded number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would an unbounded emulation of DDD by HHH halt? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a valid question, as your HHH does not do an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation, but aborts after a defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Now you are contradicting yourself* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU JUST SAID THAT HHH NEED NOT DO AN UNBOUNDED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EMULATION TO PREDICT WHAT AN UNBOUNDED EMULATION >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WOULD DO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. it doesn't NEED to do the operation, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report what an unbounded emulation would do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked about an "unbounded emulation of DDD by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH" but that isn't possible, as HHH doesn't do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > emulation of that input would do, even if its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > only lets it emulate a part of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn't need to DO the unbounded emulatiohn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just figure out what it would do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like we can compute: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n + ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ether by adding the infinite number of terms, or we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can notice something about it to say it will sum, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infinite limit, to 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, if HHH can see something in its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that tells it THIS this program can NEVER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, it can report it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient technical competence can see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unbounded emulation of DDD emulated by HHH can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the HHH that is given doesn't do that, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the only one that matters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > emulation of that input would do, even if its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > only lets it emulate a part of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep contradicting yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to stop looking at anything you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where is the contradiction? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't need to do the unlimited emulation, just say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the unlimited emulation by the unlimited emulator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which WILL be a different program) will do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I have been saying all along. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you agree that HHH1's emulation to the completion shows >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the complete emulation of the input to HHH does halt, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus the correct answer for HHH to give for *THIS* >>>>>>>>>>>>> input, which has implicitly included *THIS* HHH as part of >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, is that it halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing like this. >>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that halting >>>>>>>>>>>> requires reaching the "return" instruction final >>>>>>>>>>>> halt state. DDD emulated by HHH never does this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH isn't the correct measure of DDD >>>>>>>>>>> reaching its return statement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well we did get somewhere on this so that is more progress. >>>>>>>>>> Only reaching the final state is halting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And only something that continues to the end shows that, an >>>>>>>>> emulation that aborts doesn't show that the input is non- >>>>>>>>> halting unless it can prove that the unaborted emulation of >>>>>>>>> that EXACT PROGRAM would never halt. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========