Path: ...!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 --- TYPO
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:27:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ffd89b37bd90ad09952a020e8174a1264be117c1@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>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@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 00:27:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="523710"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8602
Lines: 169

On 11/1/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/1/2024 6:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-31 12:53:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2024 5:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-31 01:20:40 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/10/2024 23:35, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/30/24 8:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that stupid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that ignorant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is not your ADD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you think it was going to play poker?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. 
>>>>>>>>>> It might figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, 
>>>>>>>>>> at which point it knows that the decider might choose to abort 
>>>>>>>>>> its conditional emulation to return, so it needs to emulate 
>>>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that 
>>>>>>>>>> if I don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I 
>>>>>>>>>> need to abort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to KNOW ITS OWN 
>>>>>>>>> CODE.
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // page 801
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read, reread again and again to make sure that my understanding
>>>>>>>>> is correct. You seems to glance at a few words before spouting 
>>>>>>>>> off a canned rebuttal that does not even apply to my words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional 
>>>>>>>> branches" excludes that code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not know its own code. It merely knows that the
>>>>>>> machine address that it is looking at belongs to the
>>>>>>> operating system. I simply don't have the fifty labor
>>>>>>> years that AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs,
>>>>>>> could spend on handling conditional branches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stupid aspect on your part is that even knowing
>>>>>>> that its own code halts THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
>>>>>>> DDD REACHING TS OWN RETURN INSTRUCTION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, HHH is NOT part of the "Operating System" so your claims are 
>>>>>> just a lie,
>>>>>
>>>>> PO definitely has a deep-rooted problem with his thinking here.
>>>>
>>>> What PO does does not look like any thingking but more like what one
>>>> could expect from ChatgPPT or a similar AI.
>>>
>>> I don't have the 50 years it would take for me to replicate the work of
>>> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Even if you had you could not use it to prove your false
>> claim that there be some defect in some proof.
>>
> 
> There has never ever been the least trace of error
> in this verified fact:

Sure there has been, but you have just proven that you are too stupid to 
understand it.

> 
> 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.
> 
> When we do not construe the current received view as
> inherently infallible then we can begin to consider
> alternative view. If naive set theory was construed
> as inherently infallible then ZFC could have never
> resolved Russell's Paradox.
> 

In other words, when we allow LIES into our logic system, we can say 
anything we want to.

Sorry, but you just don't understand how Formal Logic works.

> It really is not even any change to the view of deciders
> to know that they compute the mapping from their finite
> string input to their own accept or reject state on the
> basis of a semantic or syntactic property of this string.
> 
> It does seems to be a change to how this semantic property
> is string understood when applied to the halting problem proof.
> 
> Everyone here seems to think that the semantic property of
> this finite string is not the actual behavior that this finite
> string actually specifies.
> 
> Instead of the actual behavior they construe it as the idealized
> behavior that would occur if DDD was not calling its own termination
> analyzer.
> 
>>> In other case what I am doing is called
>>> isolating the independent variable.
>>
>> You may call it that way. It does not look like that.
>>
>>> The program under test is DDD.
>>> HHH is NOT the program under test it is the tester.
>>
>> So far is good. But the halting problem demands that every Turng machine
>> can be put to the test.
>>
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========