Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---Breakthrough ?

On 11/9/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/7/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/7/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

>
DDD emulated by HHH has the property that DDD never reaches
its "return" instruction final halt state.

>
But DDD emulated by HHH isn't an objective property of DDD.
>

>
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>
>
>

>
No it isn't
>

>
Liar.
>
>

>
No, you are, becuase you don't know know what the words mean.
>
The semantic property is the results of the COMPLETE emulation of the input given to HHH,

>
That you keep going back to the moronic idea of completely
emulating a non-terminating input makes you look quite stupid.

>
Why do you say that?
>
It is the DEFINITION of a semantic property.
>

>
*You yourself have already disagreed with 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.
 >
>

>
So, you don't understand what an "unbound emulation" is.
>

 An emulation that is unbounded has no aborts.

Right.
And since that isn't the emulation that HHH does, it doesn't count.
We need to do that type of emulation of the input that represents the full program that was given to HHH, which is the DDD paired with THAT HHH, not some other one that doesn't abort.

 

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.
>
An "Unbound Emulation" is a term of art that means an emulation that proceeds for an unbouned number of steps, in lay-terms, and infinite number of steps.
>

 Yes. I knew that.

So, why do you keep trying to talk about the emulation of DDD by HHH as the meaning, when your HHH does abort.

 

That is the same as "Completely".
>

 Not at all. It is very stupid to say that for non-halting inputs.
It is stupid in the same way as asking what is the last natural number?

So, you don't think we can talk of the complete set of Natural Numbers?
Completely might take "infinte" time to do.

  > ...even if its own programming
 > only lets it emulate a part of that.
 In other words the finite computation of HHH
  > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
 > emulation of that input would do
 

Right, the finite computation of HHH, to be correct, must match what the Unbounded/unaborted/completely emulation of that program described, which is the DDD calling that finite HHH that gave the answer.
Since that emulation WILL reach the return in a finite number of steps, we never needed to worry about the infinitude of the needed emulation, we just needed to emulate farther than that HHH did when it decided on the wrong answer.
Since the HHH that doesn't abort, never gives an answer we need to check, we can verify that HHH is always wrong with the finite emulation done by another emulator (not HHH) that continues to the end.
Your problem is you keep on wanting to have that emulation look at a different input, forgetting that the DDD we have been talking about has already been paired with a specific HHH, so the test emulator need to look at the DDD paired with THAT HHH, not itself.
You are just showing you don't understand what a proper "program" is, as shown by the fact that you claimed input string is NOT a correct description of the program you are claiming to be deciding on, so of course your logic goes bad. The description of DDD needs to include the HHH that it calls, or the input is just semantic gibberish.