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

On 10/30/24 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?
>

 It is very stupid of you to say that is needed to find the
right answer. Anyone that is not too stupid knows this is true:

No, YOU are very stupid to ignore the meaning of the words of the problem you claim to be working on.
 > > DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86

language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

No, the criteria is the OBJECTIVE specification of being correctly, which means completely emulated, not the SUBJECTIVE criteria that allows for HHH to do a PARTIAL (and thus NOT fully correct) emulation,
Remember, the ORIGINAL QUESTION, which you claim to be working on talked of the behavior of the program described, and that behavior is only seen in a COMPLETE emulation of that description.

 If HHH also is not too stupid then HHH also knows that it is
true.
 

HHH has no mind, as it just follows its instructions,
It seems you are no smarter than it, and have created the sin of the blind leading the blind.