Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- EQUIVOCATION
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:00:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <vg6hv7$1mc6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 02:00:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657";
	logging-data="55686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Kb/NO3M808y2Oj5/r04zK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tbdr/2JeAQzf8G7c8jLq8hEW9QE=
In-Reply-To: <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8309

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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the main motive of people like Richard is to derail
>>>>>>>> any chance of mutual agreement I cannot proceed with all
>>>>>>>> of the steps achieving mutual agreement on each step one
>>>>>>>> at a time in their mandatory prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, my "motive" is to hold cranks to the truth, or at least get 
>>>>>>> them to admit that they are off in some other system, that they 
>>>>>>> can define.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep on wanting to be in the system (since it provides the 
>>>>>>> proof of the things you don't like) but can't hold yourself to 
>>>>>>> actually be in the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
>>>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Equivocation between looking at the behavor of DDD being the 
>>>>>>> actual program (which include a particular version of HHH) and 
>>>>>>> the behavior of a PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, which ends up 
>>>>>>> not having the property you want to show.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Partial doesn't lead to showing never.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you continue to perpetually insist on
>>>>>> the ridiculously stupid idea of requiring the complete
>>>>>> emulation of a non-terminating input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think this is: stupidity, ignorance, ADD.
>>>>>> I don't know what this leaves besides dishonesty with malice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you just need to know the RESULTS of the emulation of the input 
>>>>> even if you emulate it for an unlimited number of steps.
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>> So, you agree that the results of only the partial emulation done by 
>>> HHH doesn't define the answer, only that of the infinte emulation OF 
>>> THIS EXACT INPUT, defines the behavior, as shown by HHH1(DDD) which 
>>> shows it halts.
>>>
>>>>> You don't need to actually do it if you can prove what it would be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Yes and ChatGPT agrees*
>>>>
>>>> <ChatGPT>
>>>>    Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real
>>>>    execution to stop DDD() from running forever. But when
>>>>    HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized" version
>>>>    of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion. In the simulation,
>>>>    DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so HHH concludes that
>>>>    it would not halt without external intervention.
>>>> </ChatGPT>
>>>>
>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
>>>
>>> Just admitmits that HHH gets the wrong answer, because you lied, 
>>> because the HHH that DDD calls will also abort and return to DDD, so 
>>> DDD would halt.
>>>
>>> Remember, you AGREED above that it is the behavior of the INFINITE 
>>> emulation, not the finite emulation of HHH defines the answer.
>>>
>>
>> A termination analyzer / halt decider must PREDICT
>> non terminating behavior not measure it.
>>
>> If a termination analyzer / halt decider MEASURES
>> non-terminating behavior IT CANNOT REPORT THIS.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of H 
>>>>> that does abort and return.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it is not.
>>>> <ChatGPT>
>>>>    when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an
>>>>    "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing
>>>>    stops the recursion.
>>>> </ChatGPT>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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.

It has only ever been based on what this input would do
if its simulation was never aborted.

>> Only a knucklehead would think that HHH is supposed
>> to actually measure infinite behavior.
> 
> But it needs to actually prove that it would occur before it can claim it.
> 

In other words that fact that DDD emulated by HHH would never
stop running unless aborted is over your head?

I can see this, Ben can see this and ChatGPT understands it
so well that it can use entirely different words to explain
exactly how it sees this.

> Your problem is you think it is ok to LIE if that is the best you know.
> 
>>
>>> In other words, you are just lying about what you are doing.
>>>
>>> DDD calls the HHH that aborts, not the idealized one, and thus your 
>>> arguement ADMITS it is just lying.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is the DEFINITION of a semantic property, the FINAL results of 
>>>>> the execution (or complete emulation) of the program described by 
>>>>> the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something you new system doesn't seem to be able to handle.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========