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 19:38:30 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vg98im$khai$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <418c3ffcdca6ac4b1adc7f2a5f81f297000a5bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8u0b$i9jj$5@dont-email.me>
 <2f2988b4d581398be9780ea082754d2a67bee1f6@i2pn2.org>
 <vg97j5$kb67$2@dont-email.me>
 <a89303e978559d2b152a014ad587e6f3defa323c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 02:38:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c03802f94c328efff99322eacddb6cd";
	logging-data="673106"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6464f0RfGruzgHYlASQNh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p8w5nGa4h0gfR0YnKxfbl5xOOjg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241103-6, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a89303e978559d2b152a014ad587e6f3defa323c@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5420

On 11/3/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/3/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/3/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/3/24 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't know what you are trying to say, but it seems you are just 
>>> floundering and agreeing that the CORRECT determination must 
>>> determine what the UNBOUNDED emulation of THIS input would do, which 
>>> isn't what HHH does, as you have been told, so your claims of HHH 
>>> being correct are just lies. based on your ignorance.
>>
>> What would an unbounded emulation do?
>>
> 
> Keep on emulating for an unbounded number of steps.
> 
> Something you don't seem to understand as part of the requirements.
> 
> Non-Halting isn't just did reach a final state in some finite number of 
> steps, but that it will NEVER reach a final state even if you process an 
> unbounded number of steps.

Would an unbounded emulation of DDD by HHH halt?

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