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

On 10/29/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/29/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/29/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/29/2024 10:18 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 09:58:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/29/2024 9:50 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 29/10/2024 13:56, olcott wrote:

To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the
idea of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination
analyzer.

      The /idea/ is ancient, and certainly dates back at least to
      the
1970s.  For a relatively informal discussion, see paragraph 3 of
    http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
>

The word "simulate" or "UTM" or "interpret" was not there.
Let me know what keyword to search for I have to prepare my house for my
cancer treatment.

The key word is "see". Oh wait, that's "emulate", which you haven't
explained the relevant difference from simulation of. Please keep
us posted about your health.
>

>
The good news about my health is that I will probably
not be dead very soon.
>
An x86 emulation has a 100% perfectly exact standard
such that anyone disagreeing is unequivocally wrong.
A simulation is much more vague.

>
Right, assuming it is a COMPLETE x86 emulation, which HHH doesn't do.
>

 Requiring the complete emulation of a non-terminating input is
a complete jackass thing to say because no one could be that stupid.
 

WHy? if that is what is NEEDED to get the right answer?
Only a complete jackass would think the WRONG answer was right.
You are starting with the FALSE PRESUMPTION that the function *IS* computable, when that is what the ultimate question is.
THe fact that it might require "infinite work" to determine is part of what makes Halting non-computable.