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

On 11/14/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 7:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
dishonest.

Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other
HHH that doesn’t abort.

DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final
halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.

When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to
DDD, which then halts.

It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.

>
What, then, is the DDD "under test"?

>
The machine code address that is passed to HHH on the stack
is the input to HHH thus the code under test. It specifies
that HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>

>
And thus the contents of the memory are ALSO part of the "input" and thus not changable without changing the input.
>

HHH is required to abort the emulation of any input that
would otherwise result in its own non-termination. DDD
is such an input.

>
No, HHH does what it does, and, to be a halt decider must determine if the program described halts or not.
>

 An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider
is required to prevent its own non-termination.
 

It is also requied to CORRECTLY indicate what the program described by its input will do when it is run.
That is can't do both at the same time just makes the problem uncomputable, and the fact you don't understand this shows your STUPIDITY.
The fact you keep on trying to change the fundamental, and thus unchangable, definitions just shows your ignorance, and total disregard for the truth, making you just a pathological liar.