Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- EQUIVOCATION Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:04:55 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org> <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org> <38fdfb81e98cbb31d6dfffddbd5a82eff984e496@i2pn2.org> <750be82de0bb525580577c5ed9ce33a04ad369be@i2pn2.org> <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org> <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org> <0c832418f6eb4f2894105bf227b91d3f9feff5e4@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:04:55 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="810337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4396 Lines: 52 Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 09:16:39 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 11/3/2024 8:32 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 02 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of >>>>>>>>>> H that does abort and return. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it is not. >>>>>>>>>    when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized" >>>>>>>>>    version of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion. >>>>>>>> In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking >>>>>>>> at the input it was given. >>>>>>> ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH is >>>>>>> supposed to predict the behavior of the infinite emulation on the >>>>>>> basis of its finite emulation. >> LLMs literally string words they have previously seen together. >> >>>>>> Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the >>>>>> actual machine. >>>>> No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior of the actual >>>>> machine for any non-terminating inputs. >> Haha what? It absolutely is. For a nonterminating input a halting >> decider must return that it doesn't halt. >>>> Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a >>>> semantic property. >>> The actual behavior specified by the finite string input to HHH does >>> include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD such that this DD *not some >>> other DDD somewhere else* >> Especially not some DDD that calls a non-aborting simulator HHH1. > *HHH1 has identical source code to HHH* Ok great, let's just exchange them then. How does HHH1 simulate EEE(){HHH1(EEE);} and FFF(){HHH(DDD);}? > DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own return instruction. > DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES REACH its own return instruction. Hm, the program under test is the same here. The difference must be in the testing program. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.