Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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 ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:57:58 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cd25910ff299d7ac076f0dcf48801e7ca4db2083@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$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> <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:57:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2514274"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5015
Lines: 75

On 11/14/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
>>>> is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
>>> IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.
>>
>> I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
>>
> 
> That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
> already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
> emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
> 
> 

No, DDD emulated by HHH emulates HHH emulating DDD and then aborting 
that emulation and returning, and thus the COMPLETE emulation that it 
only partially did WILL reach the end state, so the correct answer is 
Halting.

HHH1, just doesn't make the error of aborting without having the answer, 
adn thus sees the correct answer. It also emulates HHH emulationg DDD 
and continues till it sees the emulated HHH aborting its emulation and 
returning to the emulated DDD and that halting.

They both see the IDENTICAL sequence of steps, the fact that HHH sees 
something that is like itself doesn't matter, as the question is 
OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE.

HHH just has an erroneous rule which was added as by your design, 
without it HHH would be a DIFFERENT program that never stops this 
emulation, and the DIFFERENT input of the DDD built on that DIFFERENT 
decider ends up being non-halting, but that DIFFERENT HHH never answers 
so is also wrong.

You have just programmed your HHH to make the INVALID deduction that it 
is that other version of HHH (which is isn't) and thus it makes an 
incorrecgt conclusion.


Both HHH and HHH1 see the exact same code, and step through the exact 
same objective set of steps to the point that HHH makes the SUBJECTIVE 
error and aborts its processing.