Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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 22:42:44 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <1ee05647789dbaab013f1194411ff373e45a463e@i2pn2.org> <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org> <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org> <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:42:45 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1309106"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 17992 Lines: 388 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the correct meaning of the statement, it is just false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========