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 ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:55 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 399
Message-ID: <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vg9efe$p463$1@dont-email.me>
 <fdcd7140ef71f12f42a99a9d5b720e1574b98920@i2pn2.org>
 <vg9h2j$pi2n$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ee05647789dbaab013f1194411ff373e45a463e@i2pn2.org>
 <vgafqv$umps$1@dont-email.me>
 <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org>
 <vgbskb$172co$1@dont-email.me>
 <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org>
 <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 05:39:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cf051fb5fa2cddab5c252c15e56daec";
	logging-data="2657304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IG9fJBaUCtCKJ0ZRqfuKC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ElKBPGJEWDPYcxAS3b96LkJjBXE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241106-12, 11/6/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 18938

On 11/6/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/6/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/6/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/6/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/6/24 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/6/2024 5:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/24 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/24 7:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a valid question, as your HHH does not do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation, but aborts after a defined 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Now you are contradicting yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU JUST SAID THAT HHH NEED NOT DO AN UNBOUNDED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EMULATION TO PREDICT WHAT AN UNBOUNDED EMULATION 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WOULD DO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. it doesn't NEED to do the operation, just 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report what an unbounded emulation would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked about an "unbounded emulation of DDD by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH" but that isn't possible, as HHH doesn't do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You JUST said that HHH does not need to do an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded emulation*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn't need to DO the unbounded emulatiohn 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just figure out what it would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like we can compute:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n + ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ether by adding the infinite number of terms, or we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can notice something about it to say it will sum, in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infinite limit, to 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, if HHH can see something in its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that tells it THIS this program can NEVER 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, it can report it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient technical competence can see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the unbounded emulation of DDD emulated by HHH can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the HHH that is given doesn't do that, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the only one that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep contradicting yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to stop looking at anything you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where is the contradiction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't need to do the unlimited emulation, just say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the unlimited emulation by the unlimited emulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which WILL be a different program) will do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I have been saying all along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you agree that HHH1's emulation to the completion shows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the complete emulation of the input to HHH does halt, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus the correct answer for HHH to give for *THIS* 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, which has implicitly included *THIS* HHH as part of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, is that it halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing like this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> requires reaching the "return" instruction final
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt state. DDD emulated by HHH never does this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH isn't the correct measure of DDD 
>>>>>>>>>>> reaching its return statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well we did get somewhere on this so that is more progress.
>>>>>>>>>> Only reaching the final state is halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And only something that continues to the end shows that, an 
>>>>>>>>> emulation that aborts doesn't show that the input is non- 
>>>>>>>>> halting unless it can prove that the unaborted emulation of 
>>>>>>>>> that EXACT PROGRAM would never halt.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========