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 ---Breakthrough ? Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:36:46 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 132 Message-ID: References: <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org> <812056ef4c835c43225a6331d8f2de9dbb7325d5@i2pn2.org> <8d45eda8bedb636afb0bd68da3c044d40aca7bdd@i2pn2.org> <54011d725c5cf299c300fbf729915cce1aa2c6b0@i2pn2.org> <9bfbb901e8e3c8f091203e8bb75a56e7e5dc5407@i2pn2.org> <3600bab0dc3e7216b540a88acbe9ae7d8404e2fe@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 04:36:47 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e3d204d1939e67d6d9b2cbe8090f3d7"; logging-data="104725"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BSAtPDuMFa/824Blh2QuL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:AfZHzW1C1Y8JzVYycV8Iaq9m1Uk= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-4, 11/9/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7083 On 11/9/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/9/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/9/2024 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/9/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Right, but that unlimited emulation isn't done by CHANGING the copy >>> of HHH that DDD calls, but by giving the input to a DIFFERENT program >>> than HHH that does the unlimited emulation, >> >> *That is NOT what you said* >> >> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>  > [HHH itself] 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. >>  > >> > > No, that *IS* what I said, you just don't hear right, because you > "filter" thing through your stupidity. > > I said emulation of *that* input. > HHH must determine what would happen if HHH never aborted DDD. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer