Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:15:10 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1c8b34151c0f2054cc54b9f93e9c10c54257df32@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <1ecdbf0acedf6b2a26a9f7315f66696aa41187c4@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8s6n$i9jj$1@dont-email.me>
 <66b034a6443a733a1a9c3c22ad6e90304b8e5143@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8tu2$i9jj$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 00:15:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="825151"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vg8tu2$i9jj$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4464
Lines: 63

On 11/3/24 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/3/24 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2024 3:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 12:33:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Yes this is exactly correct. I don't understand why you keep 
>>>>> disagreeing
>>>>> with your own self this.
>>>> You understood it wrong previously.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1 MUST NOT EMULATE
>>>>>>> ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>>>>> But the semantics of the string haven't changed, as the string 
>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>> contain all the details of how the machine it is looking at will 
>>>>>> work.
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH will emulate itself emulating
>>>>> DDD.
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 specifies that HHH1 will NOT emulate itself
>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>
>>>> And here we have you cardinal mistake: this case requires DDD to call
>>>> its own emulator. We are interested in that program which is 
>>>> constructed
>>>> from it; it doesn't exist on its own but depends on HHH/HHH1.
>>>> Usually a program is specified by its code, including everything that
>>>> it calls. But even HHH1 cannot simulate EEE(){HHH1(EEE);}.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH never halts and the
>>> exact same thing goes for Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Linz
>>> embedded_H:
>>
>> A vaceous statement, since your HHH never does a complete emulation 
>> that can show "never halts"
>>
> 
> 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.
>  >
> 

Don't know what you are trying to say, but it seems you are just 
floundering and agreeing that the CORRECT determination must determine 
what the UNBOUNDED emulation of THIS input would do, which isn't what 
HHH does, as you have been told, so your claims of HHH being correct are 
just lies. based on your ignorance.