Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:28:21 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9b99b4dfe14296c74eeebd76b13369648e9e6059@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
 <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
 <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org>
 <vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me>
 <a00c3fbcaded06f27f00d04318140f5b9c890476@i2pn2.org>
 <vh4ti4$2qj8g$1@dont-email.me>
 <4524b9dcb46740847649bcb907a87acbac1d00da@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5e3t$2tvu0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:28:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2461052"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vh5e3t$2tvu0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4476
Lines: 57

On 11/14/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2024 7:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/14/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2024 2:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some 
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> HHH that doesn’t abort.
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final
>>>>>>>>> halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to
>>>>>>>> DDD, which then halts.
>>>>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
>>>>
>>>> What, then, is the DDD "under test"?
>>>
>>> The machine code address that is passed to HHH on the stack
>>> is the input to HHH thus the code under test. It specifies
>>> that HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>
>>
>> And thus the contents of the memory are ALSO part of the "input" and 
>> thus not changable without changing the input.
>>
>>> HHH is required to abort the emulation of any input that
>>> would otherwise result in its own non-termination. DDD
>>> is such an input.
>>
>> No, HHH does what it does, and, to be a halt decider must determine if 
>> the program described halts or not.
>>
> 
> An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider
> is required to prevent its own non-termination.
> 

It is also requied to CORRECTLY indicate what the program described by 
its input will do when it is run.

That is can't do both at the same time just makes the problem 
uncomputable, and the fact you don't understand this shows your STUPIDITY.

The fact you keep on trying to change the fundamental, and thus 
unchangable, definitions just shows your ignorance, and total disregard 
for the truth, making you just a pathological liar.