Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand
 computable functions
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:21:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <v5ejou$1j1no$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:21:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1672952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ifMgXpzk9WA0VLaTWIAqY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TVgOgi3AzxrZabNKZycBohiQxwY=
In-Reply-To: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3943

On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> 
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>>
>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>>> return.
>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>
>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
>>
>> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
>> should terminate because it's a decider.  You're saying that when H0 is
>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall seeing anybody
>> arguing against that.
>>
>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
>> else would argue against that, either.
> 
> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years.  It
> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
> detected.  He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!
> 
> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.
> 

*Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of
the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that
a function is computable if there exists an algorithm
that can do the job of the function, i.e.

*given an input of the function domain*
*it can return the corresponding output*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer