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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:00:55 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <21aa196423e6c3eacfbcf722d6baa9a536ba60b4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
 <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
 <9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
 <vh957l$3rg98$1@dont-email.me>
 <ae415d1a0f07aa76d9a0dd2ef1078ffeb9b03b32@i2pn2.org>
 <vh96c2$3rlks$1@dont-email.me>
 <20671ab52fff727d5bcad5a85db05c68774fbbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
 <46c9921e9ad206dc2bf178fda7b1d19f94f44829@i2pn2.org>
 <vhad21$2jm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <14e3854f191fe4b808d5efaddefa44f24b9b578a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhak59$47n9$1@dont-email.me>
 <2047b359b2cdf7863e4d49f17eee006564187ddd@i2pn2.org>
 <vhapue$5ft2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c73c99dbb8844b5e03662d58061e76b86becb1f@i2pn2.org>
 <vhb28q$70ho$2@dont-email.me>
 <490f48585485fc0cdfe91ca85d06f0be8de6b6b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vhb5c6$7lro$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 23:00:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2800488"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vhb5c6$7lro$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10853
Lines: 215

On 11/16/24 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/16/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/16/24 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2024 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/24 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/16/2024 12:31 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:18:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:17:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?
>>>>>>> This has never made any damn difference.
>>>>>> It absolutely does. If the inner HHH aborts, the outer doesn't 
>>>>>> need to,
>>>>>> because DDD halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I have to keep telling you this seems to indicate that you 
>>>>>>> are a
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>> You don't need to. I am talking about the inner H called by D, not 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> outermost H simulating D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK I GIVE UP YOU ARE JUST A DAMNED LIAR
>>>>> YOU PROVED THAT BB ERASING RATHER THAN
>>>>> RESPONDING TO MY MOST RELEVANT CONTEXT
>>>>
>>>> So, you agree that YOUR erasing of context from my replies just 
>>>> makes you a DAMNED LIAR
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact remains that DDD emulated by any HHH cannot
>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
>>>>> state no matter WTF else IS THE CORRECT BASIS.
>>>>
>>>> No, the CORRECT BASIS is the basis DEFINED for the Halting Problem, 
>>>
>>> By this same reasoning the correct basis for Russell's
>>> Paradox is naive set theory and ZFC is stupidly wrong
>>> to think otherwise, nitwit.
>>>
>>
>> Well, Russel's paradox only exists in Naive Set Theory, but I think 
>> you have your arguement backwards.
>>
>> Zermelo did the work to develope a Set Theory Framework that didn't 
>> suffer the problems of Russel's paradox.
>>
>> It doesn't "fix" Russel's paradox, as in ZFC, the Paradox just doesn't 
>> exist.
>>
> 
> Yes we agree on all of the above.
> All that ZFC really needed to do is disallow a
> set to be a member of itself.

No, it needs to create a full set thoery that doesn't present the 
problem of Naive Set Theory and the Russel Paradox.

Since a set containinig itself is a FUNDAMENTAL ability of how Naive Set 
Theory builds sets, you can't just "disallow it".

> 
>> Since you haven't yet actually created a new Computaiton Theory, or 
>> even the new Logic Theory to base it on, you are stuck in the Theory 
>> that is defined, and that has the definitions that it has,
>>
> 
> Analogous to disallowing a set to be a member of itself
> without actually changing anything I simply correct the
> misconception that a decider must report on anything besides
> the actual behavior specified by its actual input.

But that requires changing many of the fundamental definitions of 
Computation Theory, like the definition of what a semantic property is.

Sorry, that definition is very fundamental to the theory.

> 
> Prior to the notion of emulating termination analyzers
> / simulating halt deciders we had no direct measure of
> what this behavior actually is.

No, you are just showing your stupidity, as Simulating Halt Deciders as 
a concept have existed for DECADES, with the undetstanding that, like 
any halt decider, they can only correctly answer for some inputs.

> 
> We simply guessed that the decider must get the wrong
> answer. Now we do have the direct measure that DDD
> emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.

Nope, since the property of behavior has been firmly defined, there was 
no "guessing".

All you are doing is showing that YOUR logic is based on try to "Guess" 
at something that looks a bit like the real property that you can try to 
hornswaggle people into thinking it might be similer enough to let it by.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity and ignorance.

> 
>> It seems your stupidity reaches the point where you don't understand 
>> that lying about what the rules are s just that, LYING. To change the 
>> rules, you need to put in the effort to make the new system, and THEN 
>> make it clear that you are in your new system.
>>
> 
> I am not even telling a falsehood about anything.
> I am simply paying much closer attention to details
> that simply were not available prior to my creation
> of the notion of a simulating halt decider.
> 

Sure you are, you are calling things something they are not based on 
tring to redefine terms that you are not allowed to change.

>> Anything less just shows your true lying nature.
>>
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.
> Outside of my notion of a simulating termination the question
> was a different question.

But "DDD emulated by HHH" to mean the results of the PARTIAL emulation 
of DDD by HHH is just not a valid semantic property of the input, and 
your input isn't even a program so it doesn't have that class of 
semantic properties.

> 
> The question: Does your input halt?
> *has a different context thus a different meaning*

Nope, it has PRECISELY ONE meaning in the field.

> 
> For the halting problem decider/input pair where the
> decider does not emulate its input this counter-example
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========