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

On 11/9/24 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 1:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/8/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/8/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 11/8/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 11/7/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 11/7/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

>
DDD emulated by HHH has the property that DDD never reaches
its "return" instruction final halt state.

>
But DDD emulated by HHH isn't an objective property of DDD.
>

>
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>
>
>

>
No it isn't
>

>
Liar.
>
>

>
No, you are, becuase you don't know know what the words mean.
>
The semantic property is the results of the COMPLETE emulation of the input given to HHH,

>
That you keep going back to the moronic idea of completely
emulating a non-terminating input makes you look quite stupid.

>
Why do you say that?
>
It is the DEFINITION of a semantic property.
>

>
*You yourself have already disagreed with that*
>
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.
 >
>

>
So, you don't understand what an "unbound emulation" is.
>

>
An emulation that is unbounded has no aborts.

>
Right.
>
And since that isn't the emulation that HHH does, it doesn't count.
>
We need to do that type of emulation of the input that represents the full program that was given to HHH, which is the DDD paired with THAT HHH, not some other one that doesn't abort.
>

>

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.
>
An "Unbound Emulation" is a term of art that means an emulation that proceeds for an unbouned number of steps, in lay-terms, and infinite number of steps.
>

>
Yes. I knew that.

>
So, why do you keep trying to talk about the emulation of DDD by HHH as the meaning, when your HHH does abort.
>

>

That is the same as "Completely".
>

>
Not at all. It is very stupid to say that for non-halting inputs.
It is stupid in the same way as asking what is the last natural number?

>
So, you don't think we can talk of the complete set of Natural Numbers?
>
Completely might take "infinte" time to do.
>

>
 > ...even if its own programming
 > only lets it emulate a part of that.
>
In other words the finite computation of HHH
>
 > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
 > emulation of that input would do
>
>

>
Right, the finite computation of HHH, to be correct, must match what the Unbounded/unaborted/completely emulation of that program described,

>
>
You already said that it does not f-cking have to do that nitwit!
>
Finite computation determines what an infinite computation
would do and it does this in a finite number of steps
>
>

>
No, you are just showing you don't understand English.
>
What are you claiming I said, and where?
>
I am saying that HHH does need to do the infinite emulation itself, but

 Right and it doesn't.

But doesn't give the required answer, which is based on something doing it.
Since the full unaborted emulation of DDD calling the HHH that doesn't do the infinite emulaton will see DDD call that HHH, then that HHH doing some emulation, then aborting its emulation, and then returning to DDD which returns, says that the infinite emulation halts, and thus the correct answer is Halting,.

 

its answer must match what would happen when you DO emulate THAT input (which is DDD calling the HHH that didn't do the infinite emulation) for a possible unbounded number of steps.
>

 Your middle line above contradicts what you said below
 HHH "must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded emulation
      of that input would do"

No, why is that a contradiction.
HHH doesn't need to do the actual emulation, if it is able to figure out what the infinite emulaiton would do.

 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.
 >
 

When we do that, we find that DDD does return, just after the emulation of it by HHH as aborted.
>

 HHH "must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded emulation
      of that input would do"
 An unbounded emulation of "that input" DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
An unbounded emulation of "that input" DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
An unbounded emulation of "that input" DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
 

No, No, No.
You don't get to change the input, and that includes the HHH that it calls.
IT isn't what a DDD based on an HHH that doesn't halt would do, it is the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that does only the limited emulation.
That, BHY DEFINITION, is not "by HHH", which you keep on trying to sneek into thee sentence, because you are brainwashed,
You are just proving you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.