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

On 11/9/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

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.

HHH must determine what would happen if HHH never aborted DDD.