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

On 11/14/24 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 7:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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.

>
What, then, is the DDD "under test"?

>
The machine code address that is passed to HHH on the stack
is the input to HHH thus the code under test. It specifies
that HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>

>
And thus the contents of the memory are ALSO part of the "input" and thus not changable without changing the input.
>

HHH is required to abort the emulation of any input that
would otherwise result in its own non-termination. DDD
is such an input.

>
No, HHH does what it does, and, to be a halt decider must determine if the program described halts or not.
>

>
An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider
is required to prevent its own non-termination.
>

>
It is also requied to CORRECTLY indicate what the program described by its input will do when it is run.
>

 Just like int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
is required to return 5 for sum(2,3) HHH is required
to report on the behavior of HHH emulating itself
emulating DDD because that <is> what this input specifies.
 

No, it is required to report on the behavior of DDD, not HHH's partial emulation of it.
You are just proving your utter stupidity of not knowing the requirementss of the problems you are talking about, and your repeated LIES about them just shows your pathological stupidity on the topic.
You have FAILED to provide ANY reference from a reputable source to say that a "Halt Decider" reports on the results of its own emulation of the input", thus effectively ADMITTING youj know it to be a false statement.
Sorry, but you LIES are shown to just b that LIES, and your brazenness of doing so just shows your stupidity.
You are just trying to live in a fantasy world that you define for yourself, but you can't actually get out of reality, so it has been just crushing you to pieces and spitting you out. All you have done is proved how stupid you are, and likely killed any chance of your ideas ever being looked at as long as your name taints them.
Sorry, but that is the facts.