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

On Sun, 2024-11-03 at 09:16 -0600, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 8:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 02 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:

 

Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of H
that does abort and return.
 

No it is not.
    when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized"
    version of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion.

In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking at
the input it was given.

ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH is supposed
to predict the behavior of the infinite emulation on the basis of
its finite emulation.

LLMs literally string words they have previously seen together.
 

Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the
actual machine.

No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior of the actual
machine for any non-terminating inputs.

Haha what? It absolutely is. For a nonterminating input a halting
decider must return that it doesn't halt.
 

Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a
semantic property.

The actual behavior specified by the finite string input to HHH does
include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD such that this DD *not some
other DDD somewhere else*

Especially not some DDD that calls a non-aborting simulator HHH1.

 
*HHH1 has identical source code to HHH*
 
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 
DDD emulated by HHH
CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own return instruction.
 
DDD emulated by HHH1
DOES REACH its own return instruction.
 
 
 

Do you know this is a proof that you are an idiot?

But, I guess no. You don't understand, and, would say "ad hominem is no rebuttal".
No, it is a fact as you constantly demonstrated. (and also a pathological liar).

What I said can be presented in the court as evidence.