Sujet : Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---SUCCINCT
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 17. Nov 2024, 13:11:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <e8d133bff859675e02b8f1a9e80e3946f0428658@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/16/24 11:18 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.
>
That I have always been talking about the behavior of
DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH at any depth of
recursive emulation seems to be more than you can pay
attention to.
In none of these cases does any of these DDD instances
return to their caller.
SO, you are either:
a) Admitting that your whole argument is just a strawman deception that has nothing to do with the halting problem you have plainly stated is the ultimate goal of your arguement, as the criteria you are using is a subjective nonsemanitic "property" (in a very loose sense of the word) instead of the REQUIRED objective semantic property.
that, or
b) You are demonstrating that you are totally ignorant of what you talk about, as you can't understand why your declaration means what it does.
MY guess is you are going to vehemently deny the first, just proving the second,
…