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

On 11/9/24 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 11/9/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/9/24 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/9/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
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.
 >
>

>
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.
>

>
The unaborted emulation of DDD by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
*Maybe I have to dumb it down some more*

>
But that isn't the HHH that you are talking about.
>
It seems, you don't understand that in a given evaluation, HHH and DDD are FIXED PROGRAM.
>

>
HHH predicts what would happen if no HHH ever aborted
its emulation of DDD. This specific DDD never halts
even if it stops running due to out-of-memory error.
>

>
In other words, it tries to predict what some OTHER version of the program DDD would do if it was based on some OTHER version of HHH,

>
*Yes just like you agreed that it should*
>
On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > 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.
>

>
Nope, never said it could immulate some OTHER input, or predict what some OTHER program does.
>

>
You said that the bounded HHH
 > must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
 > emulation of that input would do,
>

>
Right, the UNBOUNDED EMULATION, not the results of a different DDD that called an HHH that did an unbounded emulation.
>
The input doesn't change, and the input specifies the HHH that DDD calls. so that doesn't change.

>
What changes is that the HHH that does abort must
report on what the behavior of DDD would be if it
never aborted.
>

>
No, the HHH that the input call can not change, or everything that you say afterwords is just a lie.
>
HHH doesn't report on the non-sense idea of it being something different than it is, that is just foolishness.
>

>
On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > 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.
 >
>
HHH
 > 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.
 >
Even HHH itself is bounded
>
>

>
Right, but that unlimited emulation isn't done by CHANGING the copy of HHH that DDD calls, but by giving the input to a DIFFERENT program than HHH that does the unlimited emulation,

 *That is NOT what you said*
 On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > [HHH itself] 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.
 >
 

No, that *IS* what I said, you just don't hear right, because you "filter" thing through your stupidity.
I said emulation of *that* input.
The input is a description of a program, and thus includes all the code of that program, which includes the code of the HHH that you claim is giving the right answer.
You are just brainwashed by your lies to think that DDD shouldn't be a program that calls a particular decider, but some gobbledygook that calls whatever monstrosity you want to be thinking of at this time as your decider.
That isn't right thinking, and is what has lead you to your doom.
Programs are DEFINED by their FULL code, and thus there is only one DDD, which calls the one HHH that is in view at the time, and that is the one that aborts and gives the answer.
When we look at the complete emulation of the input, we don't "change" HHH, as that isn't a legal operation in the middle of a problem, but create a brand new emulator, whose existance doesn't affect the input that HHH was given. One name for that emulator is HHH1.
You will note that in Linz description, every time he talked about changing the Turing Machine that started as H, he gave it a new name with a punction mark added, ending up with H^
Maybe I should issue an offical cease and desist order, that you stop defaming me by trying to put your lies into my words.
If you can't undetstand what I said, you can't say I said something, and your claims just prove that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.