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: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:27:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8c7bde0e7ee95e97ee29b467b8cbdb96e756d6d9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqvjs$3v4c4$15@i2pn2.org>
 <vfr091$1k8im$1@dont-email.me> <vft4or$44tc$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vft9r1$25aio$9@dont-email.me> <vg2ban$37555$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gvo$37lpn$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 00:27:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="523710"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vg2gvo$37lpn$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4730
Lines: 91

On 11/1/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/1/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-30 12:46:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed out
>>> the incoherent foundation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>>> Naive_set_theory
>>
>> Actually Zermelo did it. The F and C are simply minor improvements on
>> other aspects of the theory.
>>
> 
> Thus establishing the precedent that replacing the foundational
> basis of a problem is a valid way to resolve that problem.
> 

No, It was long known that if a logic system could be shown to have a 
fatal flaw, you needed to develop a new system.

I don't think you understand what Zermelo actually did in working up his 
base rules (with the help of Fraenkel).

> Russell's Paradox was resolved by replacing its foundation.
> The Halting Problem Proof result <is> resolved by replacing
> its foundation.

Nope.

That woudl be like saying ZFC solves the problem of creating a set that 
contains sets that don't contain themselves.

What ZFC does is establish a new foundation to build on that doesn't 
have that inherent problem shown in Russell's Paradox.

You can't "resolve" the Halting Problem proof by changing the system, as 
the proof would no longer *BE* in the system.

Of course, until you actually do BUILD the system, and not just talk 
about it in abstract and indistinct terms, you haven't don't anything 
but yap your lips.

> 
> 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]
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

Nope.

DDD is NOT its partial emulation by HHH.

BY the semantics of the x86 language, DDD is what happens when you run 
or fully emulate its code, which must be complete.

As stated, your claim is non-sense as your DDD doesn't HAVE "behavior" 
as it is incomplete.

When you include the HHH that it calls, you lock yourself out of your 
arguement of changing that code, as you are no longer using the same input.

If you want to talk about the behavior of the Emulation of DDD, then by 
the sematics of the x86 language, HHH is not allowed to abort its 
emulation, as the only emulation define by the x8e6 language is TOTAL 
AND COMPLETE.

> 
> This does provide a basis for HHH to reject DDD as non-halting
> even if this basis is unconventional. We simply change the
> conventional basis. ZFC established the precedent that this
> can be done.
> 

Nope, just shows that you are nothing but a lying idiot that doesn't 
understand the rules of the things he is talking about.

Sorry, but those are the facts, and you just can't change. Trying to 
like you do just makes you a LIAR.