Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:49:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v7d5r0$2t5hr$1@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> <v78gi1$1rc43$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:49:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="218330c1c4e97bfc3b405615ab2ac0d3";
	logging-data="3053115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hLE5bwJ2iTP/zshNDL/B/"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M2R1gHAHbid0xB1wN71Qnrpkrqc=
Bytes: 5948

On 2024-07-17 13:22:09 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Using non-standard extensions of the language may indeed permit that
unless the program is loaded to a read-only memory. The compiler is
designed so that ordinary programs can be loaded to read-only memory.
Some operating systems prevent programs from modifying themselves as
if the program were in a read-only memory, and typical compilers
compile so that the program can be run under such operating systems.

> 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 
> 


-- 
Mikko