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

On 11/1/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/1/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 12:46:25 +0000, olcott said:
>

ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed out
the incoherent foundation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Naive_set_theory

>
Actually Zermelo did it. The F and C are simply minor improvements on
other aspects of the theory.
>

 Thus establishing the precedent that replacing the foundational
basis of a problem is a valid way to resolve that problem.
 

No, It was long known that if a logic system could be shown to have a fatal flaw, you needed to develop a new system.
I don't think you understand what Zermelo actually did in working up his base rules (with the help of Fraenkel).

Russell's Paradox was resolved by replacing its foundation.
The Halting Problem Proof result <is> resolved by replacing
its foundation.

Nope.
That woudl be like saying ZFC solves the problem of creating a set that contains sets that don't contain themselves.
What ZFC does is establish a new foundation to build on that doesn't have that inherent problem shown in Russell's Paradox.
You can't "resolve" the Halting Problem proof by changing the system, as the proof would no longer *BE* in the system.
Of course, until you actually do BUILD the system, and not just talk about it in abstract and indistinct terms, you haven't don't anything but yap your lips.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

Nope.
DDD is NOT its partial emulation by HHH.
BY the semantics of the x86 language, DDD is what happens when you run or fully emulate its code, which must be complete.
As stated, your claim is non-sense as your DDD doesn't HAVE "behavior" as it is incomplete.
When you include the HHH that it calls, you lock yourself out of your arguement of changing that code, as you are no longer using the same input.
If you want to talk about the behavior of the Emulation of DDD, then by the sematics of the x86 language, HHH is not allowed to abort its emulation, as the only emulation define by the x8e6 language is TOTAL AND COMPLETE.

 This does provide a basis for HHH to reject DDD as non-halting
even if this basis is unconventional. We simply change the
conventional basis. ZFC established the precedent that this
can be done.
 

Nope, just shows that you are nothing but a lying idiot that doesn't understand the rules of the things he is talking about.
Sorry, but those are the facts, and you just can't change. Trying to like you do just makes you a LIAR.