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 ---Breakthrough ?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:53:03 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <vgp76f$2vke$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
 <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl967$37h38$7@dont-email.me>
 <78a3858469721b9c70c6672df4bf2c03e0492d70@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdge$3ecms$1@dont-email.me>
 <f157303ea6a750b5c42878bb6464ddca0821526d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
 <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <812056ef4c835c43225a6331d8f2de9dbb7325d5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgo57b$3sfle$3@dont-email.me>
 <8d45eda8bedb636afb0bd68da3c044d40aca7bdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgof3i$3ucjr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fd79d5cada75cbd6494d8cdd939e8e3c530072b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vgos3b$12qt$2@dont-email.me>
 <54011d725c5cf299c300fbf729915cce1aa2c6b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp279$26bj$1@dont-email.me>
 <a6b7f95a26a0ce07782a87201b83f8bfab235b01@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp464$2gi4$1@dont-email.me>
 <9bfbb901e8e3c8f091203e8bb75a56e7e5dc5407@i2pn2.org>
 <vgp6as$2s72$1@dont-email.me>
 <c4d120c91229f7996542ccdcf2d8e4df5ee6c80d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:53:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e3d204d1939e67d6d9b2cbe8090f3d7";
	logging-data="97934"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fmvIfRuHTfGRQ8wYhKQNO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0C5T/A5mFsndgYncrGuuaOLC+4M=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <c4d120c91229f7996542ccdcf2d8e4df5ee6c80d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-4, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5755

On 11/9/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/9/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/9/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/9/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that HHH does need to do the infinite emulation 
>>>>>>>>>>> itself, but 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right and it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But doesn't give the required answer, which is based on 
>>>>>>>>> something doing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The unaborted emulation of DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>>>> *Maybe I have to dumb it down some more*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that isn't the HHH that you are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems, you don't understand that in a given evaluation, HHH 
>>>>>>> and DDD are FIXED PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH predicts what would happen if no HHH ever aborted
>>>>>>>> its emulation of DDD. This specific DDD never halts
>>>>>>>> even if it stops running due to out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, it tries to predict what some OTHER version of 
>>>>>>> the program DDD would do if it was based on some OTHER version of 
>>>>>>> HHH, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Yes just like you agreed that it should*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>  > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, never said it could immulate some OTHER input, or predict 
>>>>> what some OTHER program does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said that the bounded HHH
>>>>  > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>>>>  > emulation of that input would do,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, the UNBOUNDED EMULATION, not the results of a different DDD 
>>> that called an HHH that did an unbounded emulation.
>>>
>>> The input doesn't change, and the input specifies the HHH that DDD 
>>> calls. so that doesn't change.
>>
>> What changes is that the HHH that does abort must
>> report on what the behavior of DDD would be if it
>> never aborted.
>>
> 
> No, the HHH that the input call can not change, or everything that you 
> say afterwords is just a lie.
> 
> HHH doesn't report on the non-sense idea of it being something different 
> than it is, that is just foolishness.
> 

On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > 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.
 >

HHH
 > 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.
 >
Even HHH itself is bounded


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