Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- EQUIVOCATION
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:04:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d4575c5f9a951709f885c9fad687a7ab218bd616@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:04:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="810337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4396
Lines: 52

Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 09:16:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> 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*
Ok great, let's just exchange them then. How does HHH1 simulate
EEE(){HHH1(EEE);} and FFF(){HHH(DDD);}?

> DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own return instruction.
> DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES REACH its own return instruction.
Hm, the program under test is the same here. The difference must be in
the testing program.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.