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

On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>

What are weasel words?

>
Words whose precise meaning is difficult/impossible to pin down, and
deliberately so.  Politicians use these all the time.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
instruction final halt state.
>
>
>

>
But the emulation by HHH is NOT the DEFINITION of the behavior that HHH is suppoded to be reporting on.
>

 Right and likewise ZFC is "supposed to include" sets that
are members of themselves. Thus according to your reasoning
ZFC is wrong because is directly disobeys the dogma of
naive set theory.
 

Where did I say that?
You seem to be halucinationg.

That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is the behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program described by the input,

 IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY IGNORE
THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
EMULATING DDD

DDD doesn't "say" anything, it is a program that defines how it will run.
It asks HHH to make its decision about its input, and return an answer.
The fact that you claim HHH can do something that it can not isn't the problem of DDD, as to be a "Halt Decider" or "Termination Analyzer" without qualifications means it claims to be able to handle ALL Inputs.
What HHH NEEDS to do to meet your claims, is return the answer about what THIS DDD will do when run. There is no problem for this DDD, as there IS a correct answer that HHH could return if it was programmed better, you just aren't a good enough programmer to get there.

 If you are not simply a liar then you are indoctrinated to
the same degree that people believe that Trump <is> the Christ.
 

No, that sounds more like YOUR position.
You have yet to show an actual ERROR in anything I said, with reference to an actual accepted definition of a term.
YOU are the one "making up stuff" to try to make your point, just like your "buddy" Trump. It seems you have borrowed is logic method, and thus promoting their apparent validity, and thus, YOU need to accept some of the blame for the state things are in.