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

On 11/3/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
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.

>
Would an unbounded emulation of DDD by HHH halt?

>
Not a valid question, as your HHH does not do an unbounded emulation, but aborts after a defined time.
>

 *Now you are contradicting yourself*
YOU JUST SAID THAT HHH NEED NOT DO AN UNBOUNDED
EMULATION TO PREDICT WHAT AN UNBOUNDED EMULATION WOULD DO.

Right. it doesn't NEED to do the operation, just report what an unbounded emulation would do.
You asked about an "unbounded emulation of DDD by HHH" but that isn't possible, as HHH doesn't do that.
What HHH needs to report on is the results of the unbounded emulation done by some other machine, like a real UTM.
So, HHH(DDD) needs to report what UTM(DDD) would do, where that DDD in both cases calls the same HHH (and not be changed to call UTM).
Since HHH DOESN'T do that type of emulation, you can't ask what would happen if it did it, because if it did, it wouldn't be the same program HHH that DDD is to call.
All you are doing is showing you don't undetstand the basics of what programs are.
HHH is, and only is, the EXACT program it is coded, and if you change that code to something else, it is no longer that program.
You have shown that you like to try to LIE by mixing up different programs that you have given the same name to, so I am going to force you to be honest, and not allow that practice. And, since DDD is defined to call "HHH", as long as that DDD is in existance in the problem, it is INVALID to try to change that definition of HHH, as it creates a DIFFERENT input.
HHH is, and only is, the program it has been defined to be.
All you are doing is proving you are an ignorant fool that doesn't know what you are talking about, and doesn't care if what you say is actually true.

 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.
 >