Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:27:16 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <66b034a6443a733a1a9c3c22ad6e90304b8e5143@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvudo$2mcse$5@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <1ecdbf0acedf6b2a26a9f7315f66696aa41187c4@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8s6n$i9jj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:27:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="814603"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg8s6n$i9jj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4130
Lines: 56

On 11/3/24 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 3:59 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 12:33:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>>> Yes this is exactly correct. I don't understand why you keep disagreeing
>>> with your own self this.
>> You understood it wrong previously.
>>
>>>>> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1 MUST NOT EMULATE
>>>>> ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>>> But the semantics of the string haven't changed, as the string needs to
>>>> contain all the details of how the machine it is looking at will work.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH will emulate itself emulating
>>> DDD.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 specifies that HHH1 will NOT emulate itself
>>> emulating DDD.
> 
>> And here we have you cardinal mistake: this case requires DDD to call
>> its own emulator. We are interested in that program which is constructed
>> from it; it doesn't exist on its own but depends on HHH/HHH1.
>> Usually a program is specified by its code, including everything that
>> it calls. But even HHH1 cannot simulate EEE(){HHH1(EEE);}.
>>
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH never halts and the
> exact same thing goes for Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Linz
> embedded_H:

A vaceous statement, since your HHH never does a complete emulation that 
can show "never halts"

Thus, your arguement is based on an impossible premise (when we include 
the requirement that it answers about it finding)

The fact that you then continue to misuse the terminology, just proves 
your ignorance of the topic.

> 
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 
> It seems a little nutty that you refer to a non-existent EEE.
> 
>>>>> Unless HHH rejects its input DDD as non halting the executed DDD never
>>>>> stops running. This itself proves that HHH is correct and that DDD is
>>>>> not the same instance as the one that HHH rejected.
>>>> You have cause and effect backwards.
> 
>