Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:22:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <v78gi1$1rc43$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
 <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v73td3$qkp2$6@dont-email.me>
 <v73tvs$qpi9$1@dont-email.me> <v74n81$13bn1$1@dont-email.me>
 <fafa57d75cf800c930c76530acd72148c77fff87@i2pn2.org>
 <v75ul2$19j7l$5@dont-email.me> <v77s2f$1o4oh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:22:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f64513aa3f157d417bd9d336ffe725cf";
	logging-data="1945731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18okjmJQC9RJnZmGOQVAKcd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WxDGR9a1S7PTReslMKqVCdjljNc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v77s2f$1o4oh$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/17/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-16 14:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/15/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 15.jul.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
>>>>>>>>> of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your 
>>>>>>>> argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input *is* the machine address of this finite
>>>>>>> string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that you do not understand x86 language. The input is not 
>>>>>> a string of bytes, but an address (00002163). This points to the 
>>>>>> starting of the code of DDD. But a simulation needs a program, not 
>>>>>> a function calling undefined other functions. Therefore, all 
>>>>>> functions called by DDD (such as HHH) are included in the code to 
>>>>>> simulate.
>>>>>
>>>>> *The input is the machine address of this finite*
>>>>> *string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3*
>>>>>
>>>>> You are talking about the behavior specified by that finite
>>>>> string. When you say that a finite string *is not* a finite
>>>>> string you are disagreeing with the law of identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every rebuttal to my work disagrees with one tautology of another.
>>>>> It is the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
>>>>> that makes it impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt.
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone disagrees with this entirely on the basis of the strawman
>>>>> deception (damned lie) that some other DDD somewhere else has
>>>>> different behavior.
>>>>
>>>> *They disagree with the following*
>>>>
>>>> In other words the fact that the directly executed DDD halts
>>>> because the HHH(DDD) that it calls has already aborted its
>>>> simulation proves these these two different instances of DDD
>>>> are in different process states.
>>>
>>> BUT must have the same behavior.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The state of needing to abort the input changes after it has
>>>> already been aborted is the same as the state of being hungry
>>>> changes after you have had something to eat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can't. Since programs are unchanging, their properties can not change.
>>>
>>
>> *WRONG*
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code
> 
> Your complier cannot produce self-modifying code.
> 

My compiler can accept assembly language
that can derive self-modifying code.

My first paper is based on a decider that changes itself
so that it can always get the correct answer.

Self Modifying Turing Machine (SMTM) Solution to the Halting Problem 
(concrete example) August 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example


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