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 --- INFALLIBLY CORRECT REASONING
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 08:49:25 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <vgnspl$3qq7s$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <04def3c05242c3bfd2b2010509675214e9874696@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl9gd$37h38$8@dont-email.me>
 <42155979bfbe9d97b9c2886288eeabd6c18648e2@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdpn$3ef3v$1@dont-email.me>
 <949d92bc78a697b53aba9cf83fc9894a8682a715@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 15:49:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785";
	logging-data="4024572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PQQTTKeLrGrWtTemG1P4z"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aIj/8upzjJwO+nzfTLENEPZNRTE=
In-Reply-To: <949d92bc78a697b53aba9cf83fc9894a8682a715@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-2, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 7093

On 11/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/8/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/8/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/8/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does compute the mapping from its input DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the actual behavior that DDD specifies and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES INCLUDE HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes but not the particular mapping required by the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is the particular mapping required by the halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exact same process occurs in the Linz proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting probelm requires that every halt decider 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) terminates so does DDD. The halting problmen 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if DDD terminates then HHH(DDD) accepts as halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The measure is whether a C function can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not in the original problem but the question whether a 
>>>>>>>>>>> particular strictly
>>>>>>>>>>> C function will ever reach its return instruction is equally 
>>>>>>>>>>> hard. About
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>>>>>>>>>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really. The original problem was not a halting problem but 
>>>>>>>>> Turing's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. The actual Halting Problem was called that by Davis
>>>>>>>> in 1952. Not the same as Turing proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *So we are back to The Halting Problem itself*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> has always been about whether or not a finite string input
>>>>>>>> specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it has always been about trying to make a computation that 
>>>>>>> given a finite string representation of a program and input, 
>>>>>>> decide if the program will halt on that input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has never ever been about anything other than the actual
>>>>>> behavior that this finite string specifies. You are not stupid
>>>>>> or ignorant about this your knowledge and intelligence has
>>>>>> seemed pretty good. What you and others are is indoctrinated.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it always has been. From your favorite source, the Halting 
>>>>> problem is stated as:
>>>>>
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program 
>>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue 
>>>>> to run forever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The behavior specified by the finite string input.
>>>> Never the behavior specified by any damn non-input.
>>>
>>> And your string is an INVALID input, so your problem falls apart.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by each HHH that can possibly exist
>>>> cannot possibly reach its own final state and halt
>>>> even of God commands it.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the semantic property you are talking about.
>>>
>>
>> *Sure it is and you already agreed that it is*
> 
> Note, what I said was that it was an UNBOUNDED emulation, which isn't 
> what the HHH that aborts its emulation 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.
 >

*Read your own freaking words nitwit*
determine what an unbounded emulation would do on the basis of

 > even if its own programming only lets it emulate a part of that.

a bounded emulation.


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