Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---Olcott proves he is a liar
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:13:10 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <051f8cd2b76280769af04f946f186e926ed54fcf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
 <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <812056ef4c835c43225a6331d8f2de9dbb7325d5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgo57b$3sfle$3@dont-email.me>
 <8d45eda8bedb636afb0bd68da3c044d40aca7bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgof3i$3ucjr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fd79d5cada75cbd6494d8cdd939e8e3c530072b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vgos3b$12qt$2@dont-email.me>
 <54011d725c5cf299c300fbf729915cce1aa2c6b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp279$26bj$1@dont-email.me>
 <a6b7f95a26a0ce07782a87201b83f8bfab235b01@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp464$2gi4$1@dont-email.me>
 <9bfbb901e8e3c8f091203e8bb75a56e7e5dc5407@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp6as$2s72$1@dont-email.me>
 <c4d120c91229f7996542ccdcf2d8e4df5ee6c80d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp76f$2vke$1@dont-email.me>
 <3600bab0dc3e7216b540a88acbe9ae7d8404e2fe@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp879$368l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c153823dff7991b86bb7de74709020b1caf6b5c6@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp9of$368l$2@dont-email.me>
 <7b9ee8d1f6c9fba8e7a9bb067376d2a49bbd9d32@i2pn2.org>
 <vgqhad$e0q0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:13:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1860641"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgqhad$e0q0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10867
Lines: 221

On 11/10/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/9/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2024 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that HHH does need to do the infinite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation itself, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right and it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But doesn't give the required answer, which is based on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unaborted emulation of DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Maybe I have to dumb it down some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't the HHH that you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems, you don't understand that in a given evaluation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH and DDD are FIXED PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH predicts what would happen if no HHH ever aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its emulation of DDD. This specific DDD never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it stops running due to out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it tries to predict what some OTHER 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of the program DDD would do if it was based on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some OTHER version of HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yes just like you agreed that it should*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, never said it could immulate some OTHER input, or 
>>>>>>>>>>>> predict what some OTHER program does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said that the bounded HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>  > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>>>>>>>>>>>  > emulation of that input would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, the UNBOUNDED EMULATION, not the results of a different 
>>>>>>>>>> DDD that called an HHH that did an unbounded emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input doesn't change, and the input specifies the HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>> DDD calls. so that doesn't change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What changes is that the HHH that does abort must
>>>>>>>>> report on what the behavior of DDD would be if it
>>>>>>>>> never aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the HHH that the input call can not change, or everything 
>>>>>>>> that you say afterwords is just a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't report on the non-sense idea of it being something 
>>>>>>>> different than it is, that is just foolishness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH
>>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>> Even HHH itself is bounded
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but that unlimited emulation isn't done by CHANGING the 
>>>>>> copy of HHH that DDD calls, but by giving the input to a DIFFERENT 
>>>>>> program than HHH that does the unlimited emulation,
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is NOT what you said*
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > [HHH itself] 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.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that *IS* what I said, you just don't hear right, because you 
>>>> "filter" thing through your stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> I said emulation of *that* input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH must determine what would happen if HHH never aborted DDD.
>>>
>>
>> That is nonsense, as HHH does what HHH does, and the other machibne 
>> you call HHH that never aborts isn't HHH, so this DDD doesn't call it.
>>
> 
> That *is* the fundamental principle of emulating termination
> analyzers that works correctly on infinite loops and infinite
> recursion. ChatGPT fully comprehends the correctness of this
> principle and cannot be convinced otherwise.

Nope, so you are just admitting that you don't understand what you are 
talking about.

Can you find ANY reputable source that defines it your way, where ALL 
copies of the decider get changed for that decision?

> 
> *ChatGPT*
> Simplified Analogy:
> Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real execution
> to stop DDD() from running forever. But when HHH simulates DDD(),
> it's analyzing an "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing stops the
> recursion. In the simulation, DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========