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 ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 23:10:13 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vg98im$khai$1@dont-email.me>
 <b9a05a3897bb42f444e98f907bc9285a641415ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vg9efe$p463$1@dont-email.me>
 <fdcd7140ef71f12f42a99a9d5b720e1574b98920@i2pn2.org>
 <vg9h2j$pi2n$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ee05647789dbaab013f1194411ff373e45a463e@i2pn2.org>
 <vgafqv$umps$1@dont-email.me>
 <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org>
 <vgbskb$172co$1@dont-email.me>
 <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org>
 <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 04:10:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1311254"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 17911
Lines: 379

On 11/6/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/6/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/24 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/6/2024 5:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/5/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 7:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What would an unbounded emulation do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep on emulating for an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something you don't seem to understand as part 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting isn't just did reach a final state 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some finite number of steps, but that it will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEVER reach a final state even if you process an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would an unbounded emulation of DDD by HHH halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a valid question, as your HHH does not do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation, but aborts after a defined time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Now you are contradicting yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU JUST SAID THAT HHH NEED NOT DO AN UNBOUNDED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EMULATION TO PREDICT WHAT AN UNBOUNDED EMULATION 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WOULD DO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. it doesn't NEED to do the operation, just 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report what an unbounded emulation would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked about an "unbounded emulation of DDD by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH" but that isn't possible, as HHH doesn't do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn't need to DO the unbounded emulatiohn 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just figure out what it would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like we can compute:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n + ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ether by adding the infinite number of terms, or we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can notice something about it to say it will sum, in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infinite limit, to 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, if HHH can see something in its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that tells it THIS this program can NEVER 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, it can report it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient technical competence can see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unbounded emulation of DDD emulated by HHH can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the HHH that is given doesn't do that, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the only one that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep contradicting yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to stop looking at anything you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where is the contradiction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't need to do the unlimited emulation, just say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the unlimited emulation by the unlimited emulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which WILL be a different program) will do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I have been saying all along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you agree that HHH1's emulation to the completion shows 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the complete emulation of the input to HHH does halt, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus the correct answer for HHH to give for *THIS* 
>>>>>>>>>>>> input, which has implicitly included *THIS* HHH as part of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it, is that it halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing like this.
>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that halting
>>>>>>>>>>> requires reaching the "return" instruction final
>>>>>>>>>>> halt state. DDD emulated by HHH never does this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH isn't the correct measure of DDD 
>>>>>>>>>> reaching its return statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well we did get somewhere on this so that is more progress.
>>>>>>>>> Only reaching the final state is halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And only something that continues to the end shows that, an 
>>>>>>>> emulation that aborts doesn't show that the input is non-halting 
>>>>>>>> unless it can prove that the unaborted emulation of that EXACT 
>>>>>>>> PROGRAM would never halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the correct meaning of the statement, it is just false.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========