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 --- INFALLIBLY CORRECT REASONING
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:14:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <vglv06$3bn2s$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg7sdl$cbfk$1@dont-email.me> <vg83vt$dri5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgcmu4$1eurt$1@dont-email.me> <vgd5vl$1hqli$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgfv31$25h28$1@dont-email.me> <vgg1qh$26126$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgi2t6$2js8i$1@dont-email.me> <vgiqgt$2nkqv$2@dont-email.me>
 <b9a0d5ce3b7042113a97b55efdc04186959cb401@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk20t$31qrg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1746d80da6dfbe1bfd1bc39811b92bb12be1a81c@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl94s$37h38$6@dont-email.me>
 <e9837078107987476b5c7ee37f4cebe953d53d1e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 22:14:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c2fa6bf0e4c95fa4383978e96b35b7f1";
	logging-data="3529820"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HWWJQCkC5oyXgr+ninqs+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:06Hz8JrZPve/pMQxYGypLpOdPks=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241108-10, 11/8/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <e9837078107987476b5c7ee37f4cebe953d53d1e@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6687

On 11/8/2024 12:55 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 08 Nov 2024 09:01:47 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 11/8/2024 4:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 21:54:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>>> It should be noted that the problem STARTS with a program, which gets
>>>>> represented with a finite string,
>>>> No that it incorrect. It never starts with a program. A TM cannot
>>>> handle another TM as its input. It starts with an encoding that has
>>>> associated semantics.
>>> Silly distinction that buys you nothing.
>> It has always only been about the behavior that the INPUT Specifies.
>> NON-INPUTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OFF THE TABLE.

> What non-input do you have in mind? The TM the encoding of which we’re
> feeding to HHH to simulate?
> 

The directly executed DDD() is not any freaking input to any damn thing.

>>>>> and that string might be different for different deciders, as the
>>>>> problem doesn't define a specific encoding method.
>>>>> Your insistance that the problem starts with a finite-string just
>>>>> shows your ignorance.
>>>> It is much dumber to think that a TM takes another actual TM as input.
>>>> It is common knowledge that this is not the case.
>>> It is common knowledge that nobody is giving actual(?) TMs as input.
> Whatever those are.
> 
>>>>>> DDD specifies a non-halting computation to HHH because DDD calls HHH
>>>>>> in recursive simulation.
>>>>> No, because the HHH that DDD calls is programmed to break that
>>>>> recursive simulation, and thus make the results finite.
>>>> Now you are back to stupidly saying that DDD emulated by HHH reaches
>>>> its final halt state because it is aborted.
>>> You are confusing your simulation levels here.
>>> Not because itself is aborted, but because the HHH that it calls
>>> aborts.
>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches its own final state EVEN IF GOD
>> COMMANDS IT!!!
> No, I mean the DDD that the outermost
> 
>> If God commands it then God is INCORRECT.
> Yes, you are incorrect.
> 
>>>> You know that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>> state (whether HHH ever aborts or not) and seem to believe that this
>>>> is irrelevant.
>>> When HHH aborts, it halts and returns.
>> int main()
>> {
>>     HHH(DDD); // When HHH aborts its emulated DDD
>>               // this emulated DDD does not return
> Maybe it would have, but ok.
> 
>>     DDD();    // When DDD calls HHH(DDD)
>>               // this emulated DDD never returns
>> }
> What about this DDD though?
> 

That is WRONG FREAKING ONE.
THAT DDD IS NOT ANY DAMN INPUT TO ANY DAMN THING.

>>>>> If you change HHH to not abort, then DDD does become non-halting, but
>>>> The infinite set of each HHH that emulates DDD (that aborts at some
>>>> point or not) is not above your educational or intellectual capacity.
>>> The selfreference of HHH seems to be above your intellectual capacity.
> Surprising relationship, considering your own pathology.
> 
>>>>> HHH doesn't give the right answer. That is a DIFFERENT HHH, and thus
>>>>> a DIFFERENT DDD (as DDD to be a program includes ALL the code it
>>>>> uses, so it includes the code of HHH, which you changed)
>>>> *We are not even talking about HHH giving the right answer yet*
> No, we are talking about HHH halting either way.
> 
>>>> (a) DDD emulated by every HHH that aborts at some point
>>>>        or not never reaches its final state.
>>> You mean, if DDD called a fixed simulator that didn’t change along with
>>> the one simulating DDD.
>> For N = 0 to  ∞
>> each instance of HHH that emulate DDD N number of times DDD fails to
>> reach its final state and halts.

> Only if DDD actually calls the strict simulator HHH1 instead of the
> aborting HHH.
> 

IT CONTINUES TO BE MORONICALLY STUPID TO TRY TO
GET AWAY WITH IGNORING THE PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HHH AND DDD.



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