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 12:38:24 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f845b991a9bc58be836a3a604175b93c96efd366@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <a39b254c0aa0260206e0c21419993ea84007f765@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5hmo$2v2hi$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 17:38:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2764578"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhak59$47n9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5436
Lines: 86

On 11/16/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNORE THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITSELF EMULATING DDD
>>
>>>>>> Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.
>>>> WHich isn't a complete program, so a LIE to call it one.
>>>>
>>> I never called it a complete program and you swear your own allegiance
>>> to the father of lies by saying that I did.
> 
>> I hereby swear allegiance to the father of lies.
>>
> That may seem funny from an atheist POV unless and until
> it directly results in eternal incineration.
> 
> In any case people that lie about my work prove their
> lack of moral integrity.

No, the fact that your work is based on lies, show that you don't have 
any moral integrity.

> 
>> Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?
>>
> 
> This has never made any damn difference.
> The fact remains that DDD emulated by any HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
> state no matter WTF else IS THE CORRECT BASIS.


Of course it does, as it must be the same HHH to match the proof you are 
trying to refute, and that case shows you logic to be just lies.

> 
> When an emulator emulates an infinite loop we do not
> count this emulated infinite loop as halting when we
> yank the power cord out.

But yanking the power cord doesn't stop the semantic properties of the 
input, as that is about the unbounded emulaiton of the input.

You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about and 
just lying about it.

> 
> HALTING IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE.
> That I have to keep telling you this seems to
> indicate that you are a liar.
> 

Right, but aborting an emulation of a machine doesn't keep the machine 
from reaching that final state, as the behavior continues until it 
reaches the final state, or becomes non-halting if it can go for an 
UNBOUNDED number of steps.

So DDD Halts, if HHH(DDD) return 0, thus making that HHH wrong.

DDD is only non-halting if HHH(DDD) never answers, which makes that HHH 
wrong as a decider/analyzer.

Since all the HHH you advocate do one of those two behaviors, your HHH 
is just always wrong, and you claim it is right is just a lie.