Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 ---Breakthrough ?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4365a6b180564c03accb0dfb527c45b02741c896@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<3600bab0dc3e7216b540a88acbe9ae7d8404e2fe@i2pn2.org>
	<vgp879$368l$1@dont-email.me>
	<c153823dff7991b86bb7de74709020b1caf6b5c6@i2pn2.org>
	<vgp9of$368l$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1801463"; 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: 5545
Lines: 69

Am Sat, 09 Nov 2024 21:36:46 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/9/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/9/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>> *That is NOT what you said*
>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > [HHH itself] 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.
>> No, that *IS* what I said, you just don't hear right, because you
>> "filter" thing through your stupidity.
>> I said emulation of *that* input.
> HHH must determine what would happen if HHH never aborted DDD.
What a clusterfuck. 

-- 
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.