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

On 11/16/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/16/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:17:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

>

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

>

Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.

WHich isn't a complete program, so a LIE to call it one.
>

I never called it a complete program and you swear your own allegiance
to the father of lies by saying that I did.

 

I hereby swear allegiance to the father of lies.
>

That may seem funny from an atheist POV unless and until
it directly results in eternal incineration.
 In any case people that lie about my work prove their
lack of moral integrity.

No, the fact that your work is based on lies, show that you don't have any moral integrity.

 

Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?
>

 This has never made any damn difference.
The fact remains that DDD emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state no matter WTF else IS THE CORRECT BASIS.

Of course it does, as it must be the same HHH to match the proof you are trying to refute, and that case shows you logic to be just lies.

 When an emulator emulates an infinite loop we do not
count this emulated infinite loop as halting when we
yank the power cord out.

But yanking the power cord doesn't stop the semantic properties of the input, as that is about the unbounded emulaiton of the input.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about and just lying about it.

 HALTING IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE.
That I have to keep telling you this seems to
indicate that you are a liar.
 

Right, but aborting an emulation of a machine doesn't keep the machine from reaching that final state, as the behavior continues until it reaches the final state, or becomes non-halting if it can go for an UNBOUNDED number of steps.
So DDD Halts, if HHH(DDD) return 0, thus making that HHH wrong.
DDD is only non-halting if HHH(DDD) never answers, which makes that HHH wrong as a decider/analyzer.
Since all the HHH you advocate do one of those two behaviors, your HHH is just always wrong, and you claim it is right is just a lie.