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

On 11/16/2024 12:31 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:18:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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:

 

Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?

This has never made any damn difference.

It absolutely does. If the inner HHH aborts, the outer doesn't need to,
because DDD halts.
 

That I have to keep telling you this seems to indicate that you are a
liar.

You don't need to. I am talking about the inner H called by D, not the
outermost H simulating D.
 

*We are not talking any and damn H nitwit*
We are talking about the behavior of DDD emulated
by any possible encoding of HHH at any level of
recursive emulation.
(a) HHH must report on the behavior of its input DDD
it is ridiculously stupid to think otherwise.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
is only allowed to return 5 for sum(3,2).
(b) The behavior of DDD emulated by any HHH no matter
how it is encoded or at whatever level of emulation no
matter how deep IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME IN THAT IT
CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN "return" FINAL HALT STATE.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer