Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same
 finite string
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:26:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9911ba73faaff371fbb45658147eb3bb3d11601e@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> <vaqngq$4acd$1@dont-email.me>
 <varve2$ds5d$1@dont-email.me> <vav4ie$10jsm$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:26:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="364206"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vav4ie$10jsm$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8135
Lines: 152

On 8/31/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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?

Nope, Turing Machines are deterministic entities, "Carol" is a will full 
being. And the input to the Turing Machine is a fixed finite string for 
which there IS a correct answer.

Note, the question being applied to the Turing Machine is *NOT* that 
meta question above (which would be an improper question) but a specific 
instance of the Halting question, does this input halt when it is run.

That question is valid and objective and has a single correct answer. 
The input was just built such that we know that THIS particular decider 
will get it wrong.

Being a level off in what you are looking at seems to be a commom 
problem for you.

> 
> This is an incorrect Boolean question when posed to H because
> both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer when posed to H.

Nope, there IS a correct answer for every specific Turing Machine H, 
just not the one that H gives, as that machine is given a specific input 
that represents a specific machine.

We just can use different input to prove diffferent machines wrong, and 
can show that we can build such an input for ANY machine that might try 
to claim it is correct.

> 
> CONTEXT MATTERS EVEN TO TURING MACHINES
> 

Yes, but not here. Remember, in the Turing machine description given to 
H, the machine "H" is not named or refered to, only a copy of the code 
of H is described. That makes the question OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE, 
and thus not dependent on the "context" of who it is asked to.

The input doesn't change when we give it to a different version of H, 
which may well give the correct answer.

Only because you have tried to setup an incorrect "isomorphism" to the 
question do you create the subjective nature to the way you try to ask the q