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 ---Breakthrough ?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:48:55 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c4d120c91229f7996542ccdcf2d8e4df5ee6c80d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7372fcf786ecb5e394cf44079e5ff126899e252@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
 <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl967$37h38$7@dont-email.me>
 <78a3858469721b9c70c6672df4bf2c03e0492d70@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdge$3ecms$1@dont-email.me>
 <f157303ea6a750b5c42878bb6464ddca0821526d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
 <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <812056ef4c835c43225a6331d8f2de9dbb7325d5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgo57b$3sfle$3@dont-email.me>
 <8d45eda8bedb636afb0bd68da3c044d40aca7bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgof3i$3ucjr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fd79d5cada75cbd6494d8cdd939e8e3c530072b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vgos3b$12qt$2@dont-email.me>
 <54011d725c5cf299c300fbf729915cce1aa2c6b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp279$26bj$1@dont-email.me>
 <a6b7f95a26a0ce07782a87201b83f8bfab235b01@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp464$2gi4$1@dont-email.me>
 <9bfbb901e8e3c8f091203e8bb75a56e7e5dc5407@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp6as$2s72$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:48:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1759713"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgp6as$2s72$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5478
Lines: 95

On 11/9/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/9/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/9/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that HHH does need to do the infinite emulation 
>>>>>>>>>> itself, but 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right and it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But doesn't give the required answer, which is based on 
>>>>>>>> something doing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The unaborted emulation of DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>>> *Maybe I have to dumb it down some more*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't the HHH that you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems, you don't understand that in a given evaluation, HHH and 
>>>>>> DDD are FIXED PROGRAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH predicts what would happen if no HHH ever aborted
>>>>>>> its emulation of DDD. This specific DDD never halts
>>>>>>> even if it stops running due to out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, it tries to predict what some OTHER version of the 
>>>>>> program DDD would do if it was based on some OTHER version of HHH, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *Yes just like you agreed that it should*
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, never said it could immulate some OTHER input, or predict what 
>>>> some OTHER program does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You said that the bounded HHH
>>>  > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>>>  > emulation of that input would do,
>>>
>>
>> Right, the UNBOUNDED EMULATION, not the results of a different DDD 
>> that called an HHH that did an unbounded emulation.
>>
>> The input doesn't change, and the input specifies the HHH that DDD 
>> calls. so that doesn't change.
> 
> What changes is that the HHH that does abort must
> report on what the behavior of DDD would be if it
> never aborted.
> 

No, the HHH that the input call can not change, or everything that you 
say afterwords is just a lie.

HHH doesn't report on the non-sense idea of it being something different 
than it is, that is just foolishness.

It needs to report on what the unbounded emulation of this EXACT input.

You are just PROVING that you in your soul, you are nothing but a DAMNED 
LIAR.

You just don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and 
thus can't see how you are lying.

You just don't understand basic things like what a program is, or what 
truth is.

Sorry, but you apparently killed off the last remaining working brain 
cells you had and are stuck replaying your rotely memorized propoganda 
that you brainwashed yourself witn.