Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- getting somewhere Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 12:33:44 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:33:45 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657"; logging-data="508055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19++93zImw8Hg7sTdqBvzQ9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:u0ti1Z3huD9nk9WBT+BBPqD9+O8= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4324 On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86 >> language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal. >> >> A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms >> succinctly enough that human minds are not totally >> overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail. >> >>> It is not pspecified >>> in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that >>> the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe" >>> should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The >>> use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour >>> is determined by those strings. >>> >> >> In order for any machine to compute the mapping from >> a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis >> of the actual finite string and its specified semantics. > > You have that somewhat backwards. It *CAN* only do what it can compute. > > The mapping is not required to *BE* computable. > >> >> 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. > Yes this is exactly correct. I don't understand why you keep disagreeing with your own self this. >> >> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1 >> MUST NOT EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD. > > But the semantics of the string haven't changed, as the string needs to > contain all the details of how the machine it is looking at will work. > DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH will emulate itself emulating DDD. DDD emulated by HHH1 specifies that HHH1 will NOT emulate itself emulating DDD. >> >> Unless HHH rejects its input DDD as non halting the >> executed DDD never stops running. This itself proves >> that HHH is correct and that DDD is not the same >> instance as the one that HHH rejected. > > You have cause and effect backwards. > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then... The conditional branch instruction criteria has been met. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer