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

On 11/3/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:

>
That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86
language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal.
>
A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms
succinctly enough that human minds are not totally
overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail.
>

It is not pspecified
in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that
the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe"
should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The
use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour
is determined by those strings.
>

>
In order for any machine to compute the mapping from
a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis
of the actual finite string and its specified semantics.

>
You have that somewhat backwards. It *CAN* only do what it can compute.
>
The mapping is not required to *BE* computable.
>

>
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.
>

>
Yes this is exactly correct. I don't understand
why you keep disagreeing with your own self this.

>
Right, buyt you keep on forgetting that correct means the UNBOUNDED emulation, which isn't what you decider does.
>

>
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.
 >
>
>

>
Don't know what you are trying to say, but it seems you are just floundering and agreeing that the CORRECT determination must determine what the UNBOUNDED emulation of THIS input would do, which isn't what HHH does, as you have been told, so your claims of HHH being correct are just lies. based on your ignorance.

 What would an unbounded emulation do?
 

Keep on emulating for an unbounded number of steps.
Something you don't seem to understand as part of the requirements.
Non-Halting isn't just did reach a final state in some finite number of steps, but that it will NEVER reach a final state even if you process an unbounded number of steps.