Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:21:12 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <becbe578c485890f7fca28e297918f92c28ea7dd@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> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me> <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg8ulh$9stc$1@dont-email.me> <vgakbd$vlda$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgbm5r$sgg9$1@dont-email.me> <vgbmvu$15sr3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:21:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="983619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgbmvu$15sr3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5751
Lines: 98

On 11/4/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/4/2024 5:42 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 04/11/2024 14:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> [...] The statement itself does not change
>>>>>>> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
>>>>>>> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>     Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
>>>>>> who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.
>>>>> That is not a disagreement.
>>>>     I disagree. [:-)]
>>> Then show how two statements about distinct topics can disagree.
>>
>>      You've had the free, introductory five-minute argument;  the
>> half-hour argument has to be paid for. [:-)]
>>
>>      [Perhaps more helpfully, "distinct" is your invention.  One same
>> statement can be either true or false, a mistake or a lie, depending on
>> the context (time. place and motivation) within which it is uttered.
>> Plenty of examples both in everyday life and in science, inc maths.  Eg,
>> "It's raining!", "The angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.", "The
>> Sun goes round the Earth.".  Each of those is true in some contexts, 
>> false
>> and a mistake in others, false and a lie in yet others.  English has 
>> clear
>> distinctions between these, which it is useful to maintain;  it is not
>> useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg when
>> the statement has not yet been uttered.]
>>
> 
> No one here has ever been interested in truth (besides me).
> I use the x86 language and C because it exposes key details
> that are glossed over when examining these things and other way.

No, you have shown no intereset in the truth, in part because you don't 
understand what it is, and that truth requires you to be willing to 
follow the rules of the system.

> 
> I use the DDD / HHH example because its the simplest example
> that is isomorphic to the HP counter-example when a simulating
> termination analyzer is applied to this input.

But it ISN'T isomorphic, but you have made yourself to stupid to 
understand the essential difference that break the isomorphism.

> 
> 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]
> 
> As long as it is understood that it has always simply been
> incorrect to construe that behavior of the input finite
> string as anything other than the actual behavior that this
> finite string specifies which includes HHH emulating itself
> emulating DDD then I have refuted the original proofs.

But you don't understand that the "Actual Behavior" is NOT what the 
decider does to it, but what the input does by its definition, that is 
the FULL emulation of it,

> 
> (a) Finite string of x86 machine code DDD +

WHich is incomplete

> (b) The semantics of the x86 language +

Which says we need the rest of DDD, and you can't stop the emulation and 
actually get the full semantics.

> (c) DDD is calling its own termination analyzer

WHich is irrelevent at the x86 langugage semantics.

> ∴ HHH is correct to reject its input as non-halting

Therefore, you are proving youself to be just a pathological liar.
> 
> We can only get to the behavior of the directly
> executed DDD() by ignoring (b).
>

No, because the direct exection of DDD *IS* the definition of the x86 
semantics of it.
'