Path: ...!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 ---Breakthrough ?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:03:41 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3600bab0dc3e7216b540a88acbe9ae7d8404e2fe@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
 <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl967$37h38$7@dont-email.me>
 <78a3858469721b9c70c6672df4bf2c03e0492d70@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdge$3ecms$1@dont-email.me>
 <f157303ea6a750b5c42878bb6464ddca0821526d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
 <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <812056ef4c835c43225a6331d8f2de9dbb7325d5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgo57b$3sfle$3@dont-email.me>
 <8d45eda8bedb636afb0bd68da3c044d40aca7bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgof3i$3ucjr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fd79d5cada75cbd6494d8cdd939e8e3c530072b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vgos3b$12qt$2@dont-email.me>
 <54011d725c5cf299c300fbf729915cce1aa2c6b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp279$26bj$1@dont-email.me>
 <a6b7f95a26a0ce07782a87201b83f8bfab235b01@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp464$2gi4$1@dont-email.me>
 <9bfbb901e8e3c8f091203e8bb75a56e7e5dc5407@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp6as$2s72$1@dont-email.me>
 <c4d120c91229f7996542ccdcf2d8e4df5ee6c80d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp76f$2vke$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:03:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1760997"; 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: <vgp76f$2vke$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6522
Lines: 122

On 11/9/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/9/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/9/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that HHH does need to do the infinite emulation 
>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right and it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But doesn't give the required answer, which is based on 
>>>>>>>>>> something doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The unaborted emulation of DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>>>>> *Maybe I have to dumb it down some more*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that isn't the HHH that you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems, you don't understand that in a given evaluation, HHH 
>>>>>>>> and DDD are FIXED PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH predicts what would happen if no HHH ever aborted
>>>>>>>>> its emulation of DDD. This specific DDD never halts
>>>>>>>>> even if it stops running due to out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, it tries to predict what some OTHER version of 
>>>>>>>> the program DDD would do if it was based on some OTHER version 
>>>>>>>> of HHH, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Yes just like you agreed that it should*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, never said it could immulate some OTHER input, or predict 
>>>>>> what some OTHER program does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said that the bounded HHH
>>>>>  > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>>>>>  > emulation of that input would do,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, the UNBOUNDED EMULATION, not the results of a different DDD 
>>>> that called an HHH that did an unbounded emulation.
>>>>
>>>> The input doesn't change, and the input specifies the HHH that DDD 
>>>> calls. so that doesn't change.
>>>
>>> What changes is that the HHH that does abort must
>>> report on what the behavior of DDD would be if it
>>> never aborted.
>>>
>>
>> No, the HHH that the input call can not change, or everything that you 
>> say afterwords is just a lie.
>>
>> HHH doesn't report on the non-sense idea of it being something 
>> different than it is, that is just foolishness.
>>
> 
> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > 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.
>  >
> 
> HHH
>  > 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.
>  >
> Even HHH itself is bounded
> 
> 

Right, but that unlimited emulation isn't done by CHANGING the copy of 
HHH that DDD calls, but by giving the input to a DIFFERENT program than 
HHH that does the unlimited emulation, of the EXACT input that HHH emulated.

Of course, we need to fix that input to include the original copy of 
HHH, as without that, you question is just nonsense.

So, there is just ONE HHH in view, that is the HHH that only emulates 
part way.

There is ANOTHER emulator in view, that is given the exact same code 
(which includes that original HHH in its place) that does the unlimited 
emulation. An example of this is HHH1.

That PROVES that HHH is wrong, and your claims ard just blantant stupid 
lies.

Your fumbling arguments just prove you are just an ignorant idiot 
doesn't have a idea of what he is talking about.

Sorry, but you are just proving your utter stupidity.