Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- getting somewhere
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 21:59:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1ecdbf0acedf6b2a26a9f7315f66696aa41187c4@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 21:59:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="810337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3332
Lines: 33

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);}.

>>> Unless HHH rejects its input DDD as non halting the executed DDD never
>>> stops running. This itself proves that HHH is correct and that DDD is
>>> not the same instance as the one that HHH rejected.
>> You have cause and effect backwards.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.