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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:50:09 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <29e196a051630c231f92a1d2972a8c73e89f2462@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
 <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
 <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org>
 <vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me>
 <a00c3fbcaded06f27f00d04318140f5b9c890476@i2pn2.org>
 <vh4ti4$2qj8g$1@dont-email.me>
 <f6b4e2180879de96e61affc60ad38c74fe4abafc@i2pn2.org>
 <vh54ma$2saj5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:50:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2456076"; 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: <vh54ma$2saj5$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4606
Lines: 53

On 11/14/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2024 8:05 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:22:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/14/2024 2:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some
>>>>>>>>>> other HHH that doesn’t abort.
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final
>>>>>>>>> halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to
>>>>>>>> DDD, which then halts.
>>>>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
>>>> What, then, is the DDD "under test"?
>>> The machine code address that is passed to HHH on the stack is the input
>>> to HHH thus the code under test. It specifies that HHH emulates itself
>>> emulating DDD.
>>> The DDD executed in main() is never pushed onto the stack of any HHH
>>> thus <is not> the input DDD.
>>
>> It starts at the same address, however. In what sense is the input not
>> the DDD with that entry point?
>>
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates itself
> emulating DDD. This requires HHH to abort this DDD to
> prevent its own non-termination. No other instance of DDD
> has this same result.
> 

Which means that HHH admits that it isn't doing the operation that 
semantically determines that answer it is supposed to be getting.

ALL other instances of *THIS* DDD have the identical code, so do the 
identical things, so the HHH they can will ALSO abort and return, making 
the ACTUAL semantic behavior of the input to be halting.

Only your INCORRECT attempt to define the "bahavior of the input" to be 
the NON-SEMANTIC behavior of the partial emulation done by HHH, which is 
just an incorrect definition, as it contradicts the basic meaning of the 
terms, and becomes a SUBJECTIVE, not an OBJECTIVE criteria, and deciders 
are DEFINED based on OBJECTIVE criteria.