Path: ...!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 ---Breakthrough ? Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:42 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <4365a6b180564c03accb0dfb527c45b02741c896@i2pn2.org> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:38:42 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1801463"; 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: 5545 Lines: 69 Am Sat, 09 Nov 2024 21:36:46 -0600 schrieb olcott: > 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. What a clusterfuck. -- 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.