Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---MY LEGACY
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 10:44:09 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vhcacp$i1k4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me> <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org> <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me> <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org> <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me> <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org> <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me> <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org> <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me> <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me> <vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me> <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org> <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me> <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org> <vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me> <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me> <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me> <vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me> <vh73mm$3bep5$1@dont-email.me> <vh8ma6$3l333$3@dont-email.me> <vh9nt4$3ukcd$1@dont-email.me> <vhabsv$2jm4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 09:44:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7cb874039dc5dfa674ecdb8ee3422951";
	logging-data="591492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yLrsYPOEsZs/D/qRoVY3t"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8tL0Y+hviXg1h0SydKI/WdbYbRU=
Bytes: 5505

On 2024-11-16 14:57:33 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-15 23:43:02 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 11/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-14 23:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn’t abort.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final halt
>>>>>>>>>>> state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>>>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to DDD,
>>>>>>>>>> which then halts.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
>>>>>>>> is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
>>>>>>> IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
>>>>> already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
>>>>> emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
>>>> 
>>>> You are free to laugh if you think the truth is stupid.
>>> 
>>> This is my life's only legacy that I really want to complete
>>> before I die.
>> 
>> What does that "This" mean?
>> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 
> 
> 
> and my work on generic undecidability showing that:
> (⊢ is to be construed as applying truth preserving
>   operations to the LHS deriving the RHS)
> 
> Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
> *never has been correct it has always actually been this*
> ¬TruthBearer(L,x) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
> 
> True(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ x
> x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
> language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
> 
> False(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ ~x
> ~x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
> language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
> 
> The above provides the basis for LLM AI systems to
> distinguish facts from fictions.
> 
> That the provability operator has been replaced
> with the necessity operator seems to require semantic
> relevance. This prevents logic from diverging from
> correct reasoning in many different ways such as
> the principle of explosion.

None of that is contained in the usual meaning of "this".
It does not mean "irrelevant distraction".

Anyway, nice to see that you don't want to argue aginst the truth
that you called "ridiculously stupid".

-- 
Mikko