Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the semantics of the same
 finite string.
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 09:18:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56a2c0d094cf43e4c06c6a90c81a02e88f62a359@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vamk31$3d76g$1@dont-email.me> <van30n$3f6c0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vap90d$3t06p$1@dont-email.me> <vaptvg$3vumk$2@dont-email.me>
 <vaqbo3$22im$2@dont-email.me> <vaqcj8$28ni$3@dont-email.me>
 <varus8$dqgo$1@dont-email.me> <vasfkd$ftut$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 13:18:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="258072"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vasfkd$ftut$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5493
Lines: 91

On 8/30/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/30/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-29 17:53:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> I just proved that the basic notion of finite strings
>>> having unique meanings independently of their context
>>> is incorrect.
>>
>> The context is the halting problem. 
> 
> The behavior of
> the directly executed DDD and executed HHH
> is different from the behavior of
> the emulated DDD and the emulated HHH

WHERE?

Your failure to point to the instruction actually correctly emulated 
that differed from that same instruction directly executed is just PROOF 
that you statement is just a LIE.

> 
> and all four of them are emulated by the world
> class x86 emulator libx86emu
> 
> It is easy to see that when the executed HHH emulates
> DDD that it does this correctly when we look at the
> execution trace and see the the first four instructions
> of DDD are listed.

So why does HHH not show the CORRECT emulation of the call HHH instruction?

You keep on making this LIE, which just shows that you are nothing but a 
stupid know-nothing pathological liar.

The *ONLY* correct x86 emulation of a "call HHH" instruction" is to be 
followed by the emulation of the code of HHH.

PERIOD,


> _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]
> 
> New slave_stack at:1038c4
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)

But the following is *NOT* the "correct emulation" of the instruction above.

And thus, you are just PROVED to be a LIAR.

> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
> Then this emulated DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD).
> It is easy to see that when the executed HHH emulates
> itself emulated DDD that it does this correctly when we
> look at the execution trace and see the the first four
> instructions of DDD are listed again.

Nope, just proves you don't know the meaning of the words you use, and 
that you are so stupid you can not learn them.

Sorry, but that is just the FACTS of the universe, something you can't 
just define away, because you are just a pitiful ignorant DYING man that 
has destroyed his reputation for ALL TIME.

> 
>> It specifies the meanings
>> but not any finite strings to carry these meanings. The meanings
>> exist independently of any finite string. A solution or a partial
>> solution to the problem specifies how each of these meanings shall
>> be expressed with a finite string for other parts of the solution.
>>
> 
>