| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- getting somewhere Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:21:04 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org> References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me> <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvudo$2mcse$5@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me> <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me> <vg5030$3oo1p$1@dont-email.me> <vg56vn$3pnvp$2@dont-email.me> <vg7pab$bqa3$1@dont-email.me> <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me> <f2a8c9b592f68732a079819dde95e29d6a1fd50c@i2pn2.org> <vg8fm9$fg4n$2@dont-email.me> <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org> <vg8u0b$i9jj$5@dont-email.me> <2f2988b4d581398be9780ea082754d2a67bee1f6@i2pn2.org> <vg97j5$kb67$2@dont-email.me> <a89303e978559d2b152a014ad587e6f3defa323c@i2pn2.org> <vg98im$khai$1@dont-email.me> <b9a05a3897bb42f444e98f907bc9285a641415ab@i2pn2.org> <vg9efe$p463$1@dont-email.me> <fdcd7140ef71f12f42a99a9d5b720e1574b98920@i2pn2.org> <vg9h2j$pi2n$1@dont-email.me> <1ee05647789dbaab013f1194411ff373e45a463e@i2pn2.org> <vgafqv$umps$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:21:06 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="983619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vgafqv$umps$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6485 Lines: 125 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. HHH can not answer based on an input that uses a different HHH. Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be the pathological liar that you are. > >> That is what it can easily do with your Infinite_Loop program, and >> with a bit more intelegence with Infinite_Recursion. >> >> It doesn't work with DDD, as if the decider HHH aborts its simulation >> of DDD, then so will the copy of HHH that DDD called. >> > > 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 ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF* > You are saying that a finite computation can predict the > behavior of an unbounded computation and then saying Nope, you are just proving your stupidity. It seems you think the only way you can determine something is to do it by the most primative way available. > that the finite computation of HHH cannot predict the > unbounded computation of DDD because it is a finite computation. DDD *IS* a finite conputation for every DDD built on an HHH that is a finite comptation because it returns. Thus, any HHH that answers halting is just wrong. > > *YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF* > *YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF* > *YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF* > *YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF* > No, you are proving yourself to be stupid.