Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---Breakthrough ?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 09:02:09 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7372fcf786ecb5e394cf44079e5ff126899e252@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
 <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl967$37h38$7@dont-email.me>
 <78a3858469721b9c70c6672df4bf2c03e0492d70@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdge$3ecms$1@dont-email.me>
 <f157303ea6a750b5c42878bb6464ddca0821526d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
 <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 16:02:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785";
	logging-data="4024572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/GdxI8yvwVBMqMmqOARAlN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:am/EX5H9a7eRL41yVTZZwkhYyQE=
In-Reply-To: <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-2, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5214

On 11/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/8/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/8/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/8/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH has the property that DDD never reaches
>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by HHH isn't an objective property of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it isn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you are, becuase you don't know know what the words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The semantic property is the results of the COMPLETE emulation of 
>>>>> the input given to HHH, 
>>>>
>>>> That you keep going back to the moronic idea of completely
>>>> emulating a non-terminating input makes you look quite stupid.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that?
>>>
>>> It is the DEFINITION of a semantic property.
>>>
>>
>> *You yourself have already disagreed with 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.
>>  >
>>
> 
> So, you don't understand what an "unbound emulation" is.
> 

An emulation that is unbounded has no aborts.

> Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.
> 
> An "Unbound Emulation" is a term of art that means an emulation that 
> proceeds for an unbouned number of steps, in lay-terms, and infinite 
> number of steps.
> 

Yes. I knew that.

> That is the same as "Completely".
> 

Not at all. It is very stupid to say that for non-halting inputs.
It is stupid in the same way as asking what is the last natural number?

 > ...even if its own programming
 > only lets it emulate a part of that.

In other words the finite computation of HHH

 > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
 > emulation of that input would do


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer