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

On 11/8/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/7/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:
>

HHH does compute the mapping from its input DDD
to the actual behavior that DDD specifies and this
DOES INCLUDE HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.

>
Yes but not the particular mapping required by the halting problem.

>
Yes it is the particular mapping required by the halting problem.
The exact same process occurs in the Linz proof.

>
The halting probelm requires that every halt decider terminates.
If HHH(DDD) terminates so does DDD. The halting problmen requires
that if DDD terminates then HHH(DDD) accepts as halting.

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
>
No that is false.
The measure is whether a C function can possibly
reach its "return" instruction final state.

>
Not in the original problem but the question whether a particular strictly
C function will ever reach its return instruction is equally hard. About

>
It has always been about whether or not a finite string input
specifies a computation that reaches its final state.

>
Not really. The original problem was not a halting problem but Turing's

>
Exactly. The actual Halting Problem was called that by Davis
in 1952. Not the same as Turing proof.
>
*So we are back to The Halting Problem itself*
>
has always been about whether or not a finite string input
specifies a computation that reaches its final state.
>

>
No, it has always been about trying to make a computation that given a finite string representation of a program and input, decide if the program will halt on that input.
>

>
It has never ever been about anything other than the actual
behavior that this finite string specifies. You are not stupid
or ignorant about this your knowledge and intelligence has
seemed pretty good. What you and others are is indoctrinated.

>
But it always has been. From your favorite source, the Halting problem is stated as:
>
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
>

>
The behavior specified by the finite string input.
Never the behavior specified by any damn non-input.

>
And your string is an INVALID input, so your problem falls apart.
>

>
DDD emulated by each HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its own final state and halt
even of God commands it.

>
But that isn't the semantic property you are talking about.
>

 *Sure it is and you already agreed that it is*

Note, what I said was that it was an UNBOUNDED emulation, which isn't what the HHH that aborts its emulation does.
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupdity, and that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar, that lies because you refuse to learn what you are talking about.

 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.
 >