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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:55:31 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e8822390d78515292eeee28517f75aaff5bd85fb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ee04a00a23875dac3d741882bffbdcb81dd7acb@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5ils$2v8v9$1@dont-email.me>
 <9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5m5h$191h$1@news.muc.de> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
 <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
 <9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
 <vh957l$3rg98$1@dont-email.me>
 <ae415d1a0f07aa76d9a0dd2ef1078ffeb9b03b32@i2pn2.org>
 <vh96c2$3rlks$1@dont-email.me>
 <20671ab52fff727d5bcad5a85db05c68774fbbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
 <46c9921e9ad206dc2bf178fda7b1d19f94f44829@i2pn2.org>
 <vhad21$2jm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <14e3854f191fe4b808d5efaddefa44f24b9b578a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhak59$47n9$1@dont-email.me>
 <2047b359b2cdf7863e4d49f17eee006564187ddd@i2pn2.org>
 <vhb241$70ho$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:55:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2793126"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vhb241$70ho$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4844
Lines: 71

On 11/16/24 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/16/2024 12:31 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:18:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/16/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:17:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?
>>> This has never made any damn difference.
>> It absolutely does. If the inner HHH aborts, the outer doesn't need to,
>> because DDD halts.
>>
>>> That I have to keep telling you this seems to indicate that you are a
>>> liar.
>> You don't need to. I am talking about the inner H called by D, not the
>> outermost H simulating D.
>>
> 
> *We are not talking any and damn H nitwit*
> We are talking about the behavior of DDD emulated
> by any possible encoding of HHH at any level of
> recursive emulation.

But the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH isn't a valid semantic property, 
so you are just talking gibberish.

> 
> (a) HHH must report on the behavior of its input DDD
> it is ridiculously stupid to think otherwise.

And that behavior is DEFINED as the behavior of an unbounded emulation 
of that input, which must be the representation of a FULL program, NOT 
the partial emulaiton done by HHH.

So, you are just shown to be an idiot spouting gibberish, and your 
criteria is invalid as is what you want to call your input.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> is only allowed to return 5 for sum(3,2).

Right, and HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior of DDD run, or 
by equivalence, the behaviof of UTM(DDD).

> 
> (b) The behavior of DDD emulated by any HHH no matter
> how it is encoded or at whatever level of emulation no
> matter how deep IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME IN THAT IT
> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN "return" FINAL HALT STATE.
> 
> 

But the emulation done by HHH of DDD is NOT the behavior of the input, 
and isn't even a valid semantic property of it.

Your input also isn't a correct input, so you are just showing how 
stupid you are.