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 --- getting somewhere
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 07:03:33 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me> <vg5030$3oo1p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg56vn$3pnvp$2@dont-email.me> <vg7pab$bqa3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f2a8c9b592f68732a079819dde95e29d6a1fd50c@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8fm9$fg4n$2@dont-email.me>
 <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8u0b$i9jj$5@dont-email.me>
 <2f2988b4d581398be9780ea082754d2a67bee1f6@i2pn2.org>
 <vg97j5$kb67$2@dont-email.me>
 <a89303e978559d2b152a014ad587e6f3defa323c@i2pn2.org>
 <vg98im$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:03:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1054352"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8119
Lines: 156

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.

And thus, HHH is just wrong.

> 
>> No contradiciton in that, unlike your claim that HHH can do a partial 
>> emulation to predict what it itself would do when it does a complete 
>> emulation of the exact same input using the exact same code.
>>
> 
> I have never said that.
> *ChatGPT explains that HHH does meet your model*

Nope, it admitted that it doesn't.

> 
> *Simplified Analogy*
> Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real
> execution to stop DDD() from running forever. But when
> HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized" version
> of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion. In the simulation,
> DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so HHH concludes that
> it would not halt without external intervention.
> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
> 
> 
> 

Except that your input is a LIE.

It isn't analyzing an "idealized" version of its input, it is analyzing 
the input it is actually given, where DDD calls the existing HHH, not 
the idealized version of it.

You should know this, and thus all you have done is show that your logic 
is just based on LIES.

Now, if you want to try to define some alternate model of computation 
where you can do this, go ahead and try. I suspect you will find it 
impossible to make such a system objectively consistant with inputs not 
matching themselves, or programs being able to include stuff that 
changes on them. And, until you DO actually define such a system, you 
can't use it as part of your arguement. Your don't even seem to have a 
real concept of such a system, but just think that is what is.

Sorry, you are just proving that you don't understand what you are 
talking about.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========