Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same finite
 string
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:00:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <vaqngq$4acd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va24hl$3cvgv$1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 23:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e678f999b18028d25fa9559cad82e90c";
	logging-data="141709"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19skGpQtNylfwbAItnMChCL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9IHghpZ/aoNBeM8vYejmVpGqM20=
In-Reply-To: <vaqbo3$22im$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5875

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.
> 

It is well understood in linguistics that the context of an
expression DOES CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION.

That computer science people are ignorant of these things
makes them incorrect. You cannot correctly ignore context
on the basis that you are unaware that it makes a difference.

"This sentence is not true" is not true because
it is not a truth-bearer.

The exact same sentence applied to itself
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
One level of indirect reference CHANGES EVERYTHING.

The same thing is occurring with simulating termination
analyzer HHH for input DDD.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

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