Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:51:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v54i33$39s3a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v5415i$lkkc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v543k2$376u3$1@dont-email.me> <v5460r$lkkc$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v54br6$38n2k$2@dont-email.me> <v54c3r$lkkc$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v54crs$38n2k$4@dont-email.me> <v54dur$lkkc$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v54er3$394bf$2@dont-email.me> <v54f42$lkkc$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v54gdo$394bf$4@dont-email.me> <v54hcs$lkkb$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:51:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3e479354f6c59f79625e93d556f5bfb";
	logging-data="3469418"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8HCe0W08vxVTRKRF18kF6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AQP/OLi5pcmLLO5Uz3UKiTrF+e0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v54hcs$lkkb$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3565

On 6/21/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 1:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When there is no mapping from the finite string x86 machine
>>>>>> language input to H(D,D) to the  behavior of D(D) then
>>>>>> H(D,D) IS NOT being asked about the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> But there *IS* a mapping, it just isn't a COMPUTABLE MAPPING.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there is a mapping yet not a computable mapping then
>>>> the actual halt decider cannot even see the question that
>>>> the textbooks expect it to see.
>>>
>>> But a decider doesn't "See" the question. it just computes the result 
>>> it was programmed to give.
>>>
>>
>> It must be the behavior that the input finite string actually specifies.
>> It cannot be the behavior that the programmer imagines that it specifies.
>>
> 
> But strings don't "have" behavior, or even "specify" behavior by 
> themselves, the behavior comes from applying the string to the 
> DEFINITION of the problem.
> 

In this case the definition of the x86 language specifies
the behavior of DDD. If you deny this then you are a liar.

No matter how much textbooks expect that the input to HH0(DDD)
does not specify recursive simulation their counter-factual
expectations are refuted.

_DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]

It is as if you have been indoctrinated like the
Moonies: (cult members must be deprogrammed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer