Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:52:17 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9bcbd20cb4d7d8ed59fe80450bb421999e543770@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b99b4dfe14296c74eeebd76b13369648e9e6059@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5fsd$2tvu0$2@dont-email.me>
 <a39b254c0aa0260206e0c21419993ea84007f765@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5hmo$2v2hi$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ee04a00a23875dac3d741882bffbdcb81dd7acb@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5ils$2v8v9$1@dont-email.me>
 <9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5m5h$191h$1@news.muc.de> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
 <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
 <9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
 <vh957l$3rg98$1@dont-email.me>
 <ae415d1a0f07aa76d9a0dd2ef1078ffeb9b03b32@i2pn2.org>
 <vh96c2$3rlks$1@dont-email.me>
 <20671ab52fff727d5bcad5a85db05c68774fbbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
 <46c9921e9ad206dc2bf178fda7b1d19f94f44829@i2pn2.org>
 <vhad21$2jm4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:52:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2752208"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhad21$2jm4$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 11/16/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are weasel words?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words whose precise meaning is difficult/impossible to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pin down, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately so.  Politicians use these all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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 any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH is NOT the DEFINITION of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that HHH is suppoded to be reporting on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right and likewise ZFC is "supposed to include" sets that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are members of themselves. Thus according to your reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC is wrong because is directly disobeys the dogma of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did I say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be halucinationg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the actual direct exectution of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program described by the input, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY IGNORE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EMULATING DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD doesn't "say" anything, it is a program that defines how 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it will run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
>>>>>>>>>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no "emulate" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must do 
>>>>>>>>>> as it is programmed, and that the correct emulation of it will 
>>>>>>>>>> do EXACTLY the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When HHH <is> an x86 emulator
>>>>>>>>> (are you too stupid to remember this?) Then
>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
>>>>>>>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it *ISN'T* one if it stops its emulation before it reaches 
>>>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it is you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got a source to back up your claim, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Full source-code backs up my claim you schmuck.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which just prove that you are nothing but a LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> You agree, that "Truth" comes from steps from those basic truths 
>>>> that build the system, the Axioms of the system.
>>>>
>>>> Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>
>> WHich isn't a complete program, so a LIE to call it one.
>>
> 
> I never called it a complete program and you swear your
> own allegiance to the father of lies by saying that I did.

But Halt Deciders / Termination Analyzers only take COMPLETE programs, 
so I guess you lie is to call your HHH either of them.

Also, in programing system, "Semantics" only apply to COMPLETE PROGRAMS, 
so you are just misusing the term, due to your ignorance.

> 
>>> The axioms of the system are the x86 language nitwit.
>>
>> Which means that the above is an incorrect statememt.
>>
>> By the "axions" you claim, the PROGRAM DDD, that comes from the 
>> Halt7.c file, is HALTING as it calls the HHH that does some partial 
>> emulation and returns to DDD and thus DDD returns.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> The C function DDD partially or fully emulated by any
> HHH never reaches its own "return" instruction final
> halt state.

But "emulation" is a semantic operation, and thus must have an input 
with semantic meaning, and thus it must be a COMPLETE program.

I guess your whole premise is just a LIE.

> 
> It may prove to be a very bad idea to swear your own
> allegiance to Satan by even implying otherwise.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========