1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT +++ Using F

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Apr 23 07:32:17 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)