Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same finite string Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:07:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 118 Message-ID: References: <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org> <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:07:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="704a0de50af0d27d19f59cdc9b0cd400"; logging-data="1068950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vkYKPhffICoc90XwJp4jk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1C5f5XZq+mLCSwA1u/OCN4E4mbI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6543 On 8/30/2024 3:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 29.aug.2024 om 23:00 schreef olcott: >> On 8/29/2024 12:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 29.aug.2024 om 15:44 schreef olcott: >>>> On 8/29/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:51:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> This group is for discussions about the theory of computation and >>>>>>> related >>>>>>> topics. Discussion about people is off-topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Try to point to the tiniest lack of clarity in this fully >>>>>> specified concrete example. >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>    return; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH computes the mapping from DDD to behavior that never reaches >>>>>> its "return" statement on the basis of the x86 emulation of DDD >>>>>> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language. >>>>>> >>>>>> For all the  years people said that this simulation is incorrect >>>>>> never realizing that they were disagreeing with the semantics >>>>>> of the x86 language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that I point this out all that I get for "rebuttal" is bluster >>>>>> and double talk. >>>>>> >>>>>> The same thing applies to this more complex example that >>>>>> is simply over-the-head of most reviewers: >>>>>> >>>>>> int DD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>> But you should not use subject lines that are off-topic for the group. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When a specific reviewer makes a specific mistake in >>>> reviewing my work related to this group I must refer >>>> to that specific reviewer's mistake to clear my name. >>>> >>>> I could generalize it. No one person here besides myself >>>> sufficiently understands the details of how a simulating >>>> halt decider computes the mapping from an input finite >>>> string to the behavior that this finite sting specifies. >>> >>> It looks more that you are the only person that does not understand >>> these details, but who thinks that his dreams are a nice substitute >>> for facts. >>> >>>> >>>> I specifically referred to Ben because he got everything >>>> else correctly. Most everyone else cannot even understand >>>> that correct simulation is defined by HHH emulating DDD >>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language. >>> >>> Olcott does not even understand what the semantics of the x86 >>> language is. He thinks that a finite string can have different >>> behaviours according to the semantics of the x86 language, depending >>> on whether it is directly executed, or simulated by different >>> simulators, where the semantics could be different for each simulator. >>> >> >> It is well understood in linguistics that the context of an >> expression DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION. > > For some languages this is true, but not for the x86 language. > The specification of the semantics of the x86 language nowhere allows a > different interpretation depending on the context. > For Turing machine deciders it is true: WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018 0 Objective and Subjective Specifications Eric C.R. Hehner Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf "Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?" This is an incorrect YES/NO question when posed to Carol because both YES and NO are the wrong answer when posed to Carol. Is isomorphic to: Can a Turing machine decider H return a correct Boolean value corresponding to the actual behavior of an input D encoded to do the opposite of whatever value is returned? This is an incorrect Boolean question when posed to H because both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer when posed to H. CONTEXT MATTERS EVEN TO TURING MACHINES -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer