Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT +++ Using Finite String Transformations

On 4/22/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/22/2025 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/22/25 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/22/2025 10:27 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2025 4:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-20 05:18:56 +0000, olcott said:

>

On 4/19/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-17 19:57:30 +0000, olcott said:

>

On 4/17/2025 2:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/17/2025 6:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to finite
string transformations on inputs deriving outputs.

>

That's a big assertion, one you have not proved.  It is one you
can't prove, even were it true, since you don't understand the
concept of proof.

>

When a categorically exhaustive search is made it is self- evident
that all computation, logic, and human reasoning has as its
barest possible essence transforming input finite strings into
outputs via finite string transformations.

>

It is not at all self-evident.

>

It is self-evident that there are no exceptions to the rule
the all truth that is entirely anchored in fully formalized
semantics an be expressed as finite string transformations
from input finite strings.

>

It seems that there is an error above as I can't parse it. But it is
not clear how that should be corrected.

>

All mental, computational or logical reasoning
boils down to finite string transformation rules
applied to finite strings deriving finite string
outputs.

>

That no counter-example to this rule exists is its proof.

>

Unproven non-existence of counter-examples is not a proof. In particular
mental reasoning is too poorly understood to be sure about anything.

>

In other words you cannot find a counter-example.
I claim that the entire category of counter-example
to the above statement is the empty set.

>

You're being stupid.  Just because you can't think up a counterexample
doesn't mean other more intelligent people can't.

>

When you try and find any computation that is not
essentially finite string transformations to finite
strings it is self-evident that none can possibly exist.

>

It's self evident only to the arrogantly stupid.

>

All computation is isomorphic to:
Finite string transformations to finite strings.

>
Is that really the best you can manage?  Simply repeat discredited
falsehood, ignoring the argument which discredits it?
>

>
All computation is defined to be represented as finite
string transformations to finite strings.

>
Yes.
>

 Great!
This also means that HHH is not allowed to report on
the direct execution of DD.

Sure it is. As the mapping from description of machine to the halting status of that machine *IS* a finite string mapping, and thus a transformation, it just isn't a finite-algorithm capable transformation.
Your problem is your "definition" is partial, and thus just a incomplete.
Computations are defined to be just finite-string transformations, but they are also limited to those that are implmentable with a finite algorithm.

 DD is only allowed to apply the finite string
transformations that are specified by the x86 language
to the machine language of DD. *This does include* DD
emulated by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.

Right, it can only use finite string transformation as implemented by a finite algorithm, to try to

 It excludes any kind of direct execution of DD because this
is not an input that finite string transformation can be applied to.
 

But the representation of that machine *IS* something that it can be applied to, (so that is the input) and the talk about the execution is the description of the mapping, not the input.
You are just showing your utter lack of understanding of what you are talking about.