Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 16:38:03 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <vg8u0b$i9jj$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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>
 <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 23:38:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657";
	logging-data="599667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oYov9JwAd27XAZUqrOlNv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+O+16hj6wEsmN1t+PKGwq6XCEKg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241103-6, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4105

On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/3/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86
>>>> language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal.
>>>>
>>>> A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms
>>>> succinctly enough that human minds are not totally
>>>> overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not pspecified
>>>>> in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that
>>>>> the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe"
>>>>> should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The
>>>>> use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour
>>>>> is determined by those strings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In order for any machine to compute the mapping from
>>>> a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis
>>>> of the actual finite string and its specified semantics.
>>>
>>> You have that somewhat backwards. It *CAN* only do what it can compute.
>>>
>>> The mapping is not required to *BE* computable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> Right, buyt you keep on forgetting that correct means the UNBOUNDED 
> emulation, which isn't what you decider does.
> 

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.
 >


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