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

On 11/16/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/16/24 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/16/2024 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/16/24 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
OK I GIVE UP YOU ARE JUST A DAMNED LIAR
YOU PROVED THAT BB ERASING RATHER THAN
RESPONDING TO MY MOST RELEVANT CONTEXT

>
So, you agree that YOUR erasing of context from my replies just makes you a DAMNED LIAR
>

>
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.

>
No, the CORRECT BASIS is the basis DEFINED for the Halting Problem,

>
By this same reasoning the correct basis for Russell's
Paradox is naive set theory and ZFC is stupidly wrong
to think otherwise, nitwit.
>

 Well, Russel's paradox only exists in Naive Set Theory, but I think you have your arguement backwards.
 Zermelo did the work to develope a Set Theory Framework that didn't suffer the problems of Russel's paradox.
 It doesn't "fix" Russel's paradox, as in ZFC, the Paradox just doesn't exist.
 

Yes we agree on all of the above.
All that ZFC really needed to do is disallow a
set to be a member of itself.

Since you haven't yet actually created a new Computaiton Theory, or even the new Logic Theory to base it on, you are stuck in the Theory that is defined, and that has the definitions that it has,
 

Analogous to disallowing a set to be a member of itself
without actually changing anything I simply correct the
misconception that a decider must report on anything besides
the actual behavior specified by its actual input.
Prior to the notion of emulating termination analyzers
/ simulating halt deciders we had no direct measure of
what this behavior actually is.
We simply guessed that the decider must get the wrong
answer. Now we do have the direct measure that DDD
emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.

It seems your stupidity reaches the point where you don't understand that lying about what the rules are s just that, LYING. To change the rules, you need to put in the effort to make the new system, and THEN make it clear that you are in your new system.
 

I am not even telling a falsehood about anything.
I am simply paying much closer attention to details
that simply were not available prior to my creation
of the notion of a simulating halt decider.

Anything less just shows your true lying nature.
 

DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.
Outside of my notion of a simulating termination the question
was a different question.
The question: Does your input halt?
*has a different context thus a different meaning*
For the halting problem decider/input pair where the
decider does not emulate its input this counter-example
input formed this question:
What correct Boolean value can a halt decider return that
has an input defined to do the opposite of whatever value
it returns?
A simulating halt decider makes the self-contradictory
part of the input unreachable code thus changing the
context (thus meaning) of the question.

Sorry, but that IS how things work, and you failure to beleive that just shows your insanity.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer