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

On 11/14/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider
is always correct to reject any input as non-halting that must
be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
 

But it only "Must be aborted" if the unbounded emulaiton of that exact input doesn't halt. That would be DDD that calls the HHH that does abort and return (if that is the behavior of the HHH that you claim is correct) and that emulation does reach a final state.
It isn't allowed to look at a DIFFERENT input that calls a DIFFERENT "HHH" (which can't actually be HHH, as a probram is exactly what it is definied to be, which must be fully definied).
Thus, your arguement is just based on LIES.
HHH doesn't "Need" to abort its emulation, even though it does by its code, so it is just wrong.
You just seem to be too stupid to understand that the "hypothetical" HHH that doesn't abort is the HHH that the input DDD calls.
It seems you just don't undetstand what a "program" actually is, and this ERROR just makes all your logic just lies.