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.