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 --- getting somewhere
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 16:07:19 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vg8s6n$i9jj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvudo$2mcse$5@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me> <vg5030$3oo1p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg56vn$3pnvp$2@dont-email.me> <vg7pab$bqa3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f2a8c9b592f68732a079819dde95e29d6a1fd50c@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8fm9$fg4n$2@dont-email.me>
 <1ecdbf0acedf6b2a26a9f7315f66696aa41187c4@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 23:07:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657";
	logging-data="599667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++ljouiVZ8RkFJNR8rUrcG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TyMcmHai7tjKdxnzl9ONWlif5Sw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1ecdbf0acedf6b2a26a9f7315f66696aa41187c4@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241103-6, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 3985

On 11/3/2024 3:59 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 12:33:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
>>>> emulating DDD.
>>> Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded emulation of
>>> that input would do, even if its own programming only lets it emulate a
>>> part of that.
>> Yes this is exactly correct. I don't understand why you keep disagreeing
>> with your own self this.
> You understood it wrong previously.
> 
>>>> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1 MUST NOT EMULATE
>>>> ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>> But the semantics of the string haven't changed, as the string needs to
>>> contain all the details of how the machine it is looking at will work.
>> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH will emulate itself emulating
>> DDD.
>> DDD emulated by HHH1 specifies that HHH1 will NOT emulate itself
>> emulating DDD.

> And here we have you cardinal mistake: this case requires DDD to call
> its own emulator. We are interested in that program which is constructed
> from it; it doesn't exist on its own but depends on HHH/HHH1.
> Usually a program is specified by its code, including everything that
> it calls. But even HHH1 cannot simulate EEE(){HHH1(EEE);}.
> 

DDD correctly emulated by HHH never halts and the
exact same thing goes for Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Linz
embedded_H:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

It seems a little nutty that you refer to a non-existent EEE.

>>>> Unless HHH rejects its input DDD as non halting the executed DDD never
>>>> stops running. This itself proves that HHH is correct and that DDD is
>>>> not the same instance as the one that HHH rejected.
>>> You have cause and effect backwards.


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