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
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:33:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <91dc3f74c936296557e8c2897e03a9d662fae1dd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me>
	<vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
	<086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
	<vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
	<vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
	<11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
	<QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
	<vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
	<vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vg7sdl$cbfk$1@dont-email.me> <vg83vt$dri5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgcmu4$1eurt$1@dont-email.me> <vgd5vl$1hqli$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgfv31$25h28$1@dont-email.me> <vgg1qh$26126$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgi2t6$2js8i$1@dont-email.me> <vgiqgt$2nkqv$2@dont-email.me>
	<vgl0pf$37081$1@dont-email.me> <vgl7qo$37h38$3@dont-email.me>
	<vgnbfc$3uefk$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vgnt6e$3qq7s$4@dont-email.me>
	<vgsog6$uu8r$1@dont-email.me> <vgt71t$11e5a$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:33:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1940917"; 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: 4299
Lines: 50

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:15:09 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/11/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-09 14:56:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 11/9/2024 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-08 14:39:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 11/8/2024 6:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-11-07 16:39:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>> Turing Machine Halting Problem Input − A Turing machine and an input
>>>>> string w.
>>>>> Problem − Does the Turing machine finish computing of the string w
>>>>> in a finite number of steps? The answer must be either yes or no.
>>> The computation specified by the finite string DDD emulated by HHH
>>> cannot possibly reach its "return"
>>> instruction final halt state.
>> It can and does if HHH is a decider and otherwise does not matter.

>>> The computation specified by the finite string DDD emulated by HHH1 IS
>>> NOT THE ACTUAL INPUT TO HHH.
>> HHH1 can take same inputs as HHH. These inputs specify some behaviour.
>> What they do with this input may differ.
> *It is the behavior of their own input that they must report on*
It is the same input.

> It has always been ridiculously stupid for everyone here to require HHH
> to ignore the actual behavior specified by its own input and instead
> report on the behavior of the input to HHH1.
The input is the same: DDD which calls HHH.

>>> HHH must compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS
>>> INPUT SPECIFIES.
>> Not to full behaviour but to one feature of that behaviour.
>> Doesn't HHH1 need to?
> Both HHH and HHH1 must report on whether or not their simulation of
> their own input can possibly reach its own "return" instruction final
> halt state. They get different answers ONLY BECAUSE THE BEHAVIOR OF
> THEIR INPUT DDD IS DIFFERENT!
That makes no sense. The simulators do different things to the same
input. 

-- 
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.