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: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:46:19 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b9a05a3897bb42f444e98f907bc9285a641415ab@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8u0b$i9jj$5@dont-email.me>
 <2f2988b4d581398be9780ea082754d2a67bee1f6@i2pn2.org>
 <vg97j5$kb67$2@dont-email.me>
 <a89303e978559d2b152a014ad587e6f3defa323c@i2pn2.org>
 <vg98im$khai$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 01:46:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="833510"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vg98im$khai$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5743
Lines: 97

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:
>>> On 11/3/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/24 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/3/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>>> language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms
>>>>>>>>> succinctly enough that human minds are not totally
>>>>>>>>> overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not pspecified
>>>>>>>>>> in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that
>>>>>>>>>> the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe"
>>>>>>>>>> should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The
>>>>>>>>>> use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour
>>>>>>>>>> is determined by those strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order for any machine to compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>> a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis
>>>>>>>>> of the actual finite string and its specified semantics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have that somewhat backwards. It *CAN* only do what it can 
>>>>>>>> compute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mapping is not required to *BE* computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, buyt you keep on forgetting that correct means the 
>>>>>> UNBOUNDED emulation, which isn't what you decider does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't know what you are trying to say, but it seems you are just 
>>>> floundering and agreeing that the CORRECT determination must 
>>>> determine what the UNBOUNDED emulation of THIS input would do, which 
>>>> isn't what HHH does, as you have been told, so your claims of HHH 
>>>> being correct are just lies. based on your ignorance.
>>>
>>> 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.

You still don't undetstand that programs behavior is defined by its 
code, and you have DEFINED the code to HHH, and thus it isn't variable 
any more.

> 
> -
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

And an idiot sees a target that isn't there.

As shown by PO.