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

On 11/14/24 3:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
Just like int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
is required to return 5 for sum(2,3) HHH is required
to report on the behavior of HHH emulating itself
emulating DDD because that <is> what this input specifies.
>
>

>
No, it is required to report on the behavior of DDD, not HHH's partial emulation of it.
>

>
An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider
is always correct to reject any input as non-halting that must
be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>

>
But it only "Must be aborted" if the unbounded emulaiton of that exact input doesn't halt.

>
*You are just reverting to weasel words*
>
When no HHH anywhere in the recursive emulation chain ever
needs to abort its input to prevent the non terminating
behavior of the outermost HHH then the input to HHH halts,
otherwise the input to HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
>

>
No, YOU are trying to use weasel words PROVING you are just a LIAR that has no idea what he is talking about.
>

 You are the one that cannot possibly coherently explain how I
am not perfectly correct. All you have is dogma an ad hominem.

No, you just can't understand the logical presentation that just points out yoru error,

 HHH does compute the mapping OF ITS INPUT from its input
(not any other damn thing) to the behavior that this input
specifies.

No, because its input is a representation of the PROGRAM DDD (or needs to be if HHH is supposed to be a Halt Decider), and it is the behavior of that PROGRAM that matters, as that is the function it is supposed to compute, and that behavior is DEFINED as the behavior of the direct exectution of that program.
Your "alternate" ideas just are incorrect, and you inability to even TRY to show a reliable source agreeing with you just shows that you know you are just making things up.

 *At this point I think that you know that you are a liar*
You certainly cannot show otherwise with coherent reasoning.

No, you are just proving that you don't have the intelegence to undetstand the undergraduate matterial that is being discussed.

 *Dogma the tool of mindless robots utterly bereft of a living soul*
 

No, "Dogma" in Formal System *IS* the defined truth.
You confuse Precisely Defined Logic systems for the imprecisely defined debating society that so much of general Philosophy becomes. And that error is what shows your utter ignorance of what you talk about.
Sorry, but all you are doing it piling up the facts that shows just how STUPID you are. It is people like you that get us into situations like we are in now. You aren't working on a solution to this, as you are just a big part of the problem.