Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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 semantics of the same
 finite string.
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:51:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e0df3362ca2ef104df8ccd134b35b956a458edab@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 22:51:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="189249"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vaqcj8$28ni$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 8/29/24 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> Pathological self-reference DOES CHANGE THE SEMANTICS.
> "This sentence is not true" is neither true nor false
> because it is not a truth bearer.
> 
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
> The exact same (finite string) sentence applied to a
> copy of itself becomes true because the inner sentence
> is not a truth-bearer.
> 
>>>
>>> Fred thinks the when DDD is emulated by HHH according to
>>> the semantics of the x86 language and this causes an
>>> emulated HHH to not halt then the emulation is wrong.
>>
>> Olcott has a strange problem with the English language. He is unable 
>> to express himself. When he talks about what other people say, they 
>> never recognize themselves in his words. When he talks about other 
>> things he always expresses himself in self-contradictory ways. It is 
>> not clear to me whether this is only a problem in expressing himself, 
>> it looks as if he also has a problem in understanding English.
>>
>> I never said such a thing.
>> I said that a finite string has a unique meaning according to the 
>> semantics of the x86 language. 
> 
> I just proved that the basic notion of finite strings
> having unique meanings independently of their context
> is incorrect.

WRONG.

> 
> Anyone that studies linguistic meaning knows that context
> does change the meaning. That you are ignorant of this
> IS NOT MY MISTAKE !!!
> 

But not ALL sentences change meaning based on the context. And, since 
Deciders are deciding OBJECTIVE criteria, there can not be "context" to 
the input.

If there needs to be, then the question is just mis-stated, or the input 
incorrect.

"Halting", as defined by the problem is PURELY objective, either a 
program WILL halt or it will not.

If an input might or might not halt, it says it is not a program.

This is your problem of trying to remove the decider from the input, it 
means you no longer have a program so it is incorrect to ask about the 
halting of a non-program.

Of course, you are just too stupid to understand.