Sujet : Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---Breakthrough ?
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 09. Nov 2024, 16:02:09
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vgnthh$3qq7s$5@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
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.
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?
> ...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
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…