Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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 --- EQUIVOCATION
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 13:19:49 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cbba869ef742e95f889f5392c64e8b30d5f8a806@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$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>
 <38fdfb81e98cbb31d6dfffddbd5a82eff984e496@i2pn2.org>
 <vg5lk5$3s9mh$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba125243c8b842c626957957dadff9e89c84a873@i2pn2.org>
 <vg64mh$3v3m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <750be82de0bb525580577c5ed9ce33a04ad369be@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6glu$1ejv$1@dont-email.me>
 <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6hv7$1mc6$1@dont-email.me>
 <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6jtk$1uqc$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c832418f6eb4f2894105bf227b91d3f9feff5e4@i2pn2.org>
 <vg844n$dri5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:19:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="786503"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg844n$dri5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4750
Lines: 70

On 11/3/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 8:32 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 02 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of H
>>>>>>>>>> that does abort and return.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>>>>>     when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized"
>>>>>>>>>     version of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion.
>>>>>>>> In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking at
>>>>>>>> the input it was given.
>>>>>>> ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH is supposed
>>>>>>> to predict the behavior of the infinite emulation on the basis of
>>>>>>> its finite emulation.
>> LLMs literally string words they have previously seen together.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the
>>>>>> actual machine.
>>>>> No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>> machine for any non-terminating inputs.
>> Haha what? It absolutely is. For a nonterminating input a halting
>> decider must return that it doesn't halt.
>>
>>>> Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a
>>>> semantic property.
>>> The actual behavior specified by the finite string input to HHH does
>>> include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD such that this DD *not some
>>> other DDD somewhere else*
>> Especially not some DDD that calls a non-aborting simulator HHH1.
> 
> *HHH1 has identical source code to HHH*

Which proves that neither HHH or HHH1 are pure functions or eligable to 
be deciders, thus your entire premise is refuted.

> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH
> CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own return instruction.

Do you mean the PROGRAM DDD, that HHH did an emulation on (which means 
the behavior continues after HHH aborts its emulation) or do mean

The emulation of DDD by HHH, which isn't an objective or a semantic 
property of DDD, and thus not eligable to be used for that sort of criteria.

> 
> DDD emulated by HHH1
> DOES REACH its own return instruction.
> 
> 
> 

Because THAT emulation meets the requirments, while HHH's didn't, thus 
proving HHH wrong, and you a pathological liar.