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

On 2024-11-16 14:57:33 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-15 23:43:02 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-14 23:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
 

 The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.

 I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
 

 That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*

 You are free to laugh if you think the truth is stupid.

 This is my life's only legacy that I really want to complete
before I die.

 What does that "This" mean?
 

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D   and my work on generic undecidability showing that:
(⊢ is to be construed as applying truth preserving
  operations to the LHS deriving the RHS)
 Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
*never has been correct it has always actually been this*
¬TruthBearer(L,x) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
 True(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ x
x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
 False(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ ~x
~x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
 The above provides the basis for LLM AI systems to
distinguish facts from fictions.
 That the provability operator has been replaced
with the necessity operator seems to require semantic
relevance. This prevents logic from diverging from
correct reasoning in many different ways such as
the principle of explosion.

None of that is contained in the usual meaning of "this".
It does not mean "irrelevant distraction".
Anyway, nice to see that you don't want to argue aginst the truth
that you called "ridiculously stupid".
--
Mikko