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

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 are just proving you don't understand what a program is.
Sorry, you are just THAT STUPID, which makes your false claims just pathological lies, because your stupidity is so bad that it is a mental pathology.
Remember, to emulate an input, it must be a description of a FULL PROGRAM, and thus include ALL the code used, and thus for DDD, it includes the HHH that is there.
If not explicitly given, then it becomes your implicit definition which must be CONSTANT, and thus the HHH that you are claiming to be giving the right answer.
Your insistance on lying about it just shows how dumb and ignorant you are, and that you don't actually care about the truth.
You are probably actually secretly overjoyed that Trump one, since you have shown to be on his side about what is a correct logical arguement.
Sorry, but that is just the truth.