Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same
 finite string
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:21:21 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <varve2$ds5d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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> <vaqngq$4acd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c1e0bd1d1eb8fbe1ae40de0a50d6113d";
	logging-data="454829"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nwGfXvYkwE4LxsS23OgjQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xEUG0Ox4/T5im7PhCDgI5sW86UU=
In-Reply-To: <vaqngq$4acd$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8033

Op 29.aug.2024 om 23:00 schreef olcott:
> 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.

For some languages this is true, but not for the x86 language.
The specification of the semantics of the x86 language nowhere allows a 
different interpretation depending on the context.

> 
> 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.

That olcott thinks that the x86 language has the same properties as 
English, is an error that not even a beginner in computer science would 
make.

> 
> "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.

Irrelevant counter example.
1) x86 does not have all the properties that English has.
2) There is no self-reference in HHH (when correctly programmed, so, not 
knowing its own address).
3) There is no extra level of indirection, because there is no 
self-reference.

> 
> The same thing is occurring with simulating termination
> analyzer HHH for input DDD.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }


The problem is not in DDD. This is a simpler example.
HHH should process its *input*, not knowing whether that input uses the 
same algorithm as used by HHH itself. The code of HHH, when simulated by 
HHH, should be considered as a copy of the original code, not as the 
code of HHH itself. In fact, the simulated HHH does not need to be an 
exact copy of the simulating HHH, it is sufficient that it uses the same 
algorithm.

That is a fact that olcott ignores, which makes that he gets different 
results for the same input depending on whether HHH or HHH1 simulates 
the input. His confusion is enhanced because he places the code of the 
simulated HHH and the simulating HHH in the same memory location. But 
that is an artifact that should be ignored. It would help a lot to 
remove this confusion when the input for HHH really would be indeed a 
finite string containing the whole program, or at least to place the 
simulated HHH is a different memory location from the simulating HHH.

The claim that there is a self reference in the question "Does this 
input describe a halting program", is equivalent to the claim that the 
question "Does this person have blue eyes?" has a self-reference. There 
is no self reference, not when the person is your twin brother, not when 
you need eyes to see the colour, not even when that person is the same 
person as the one that is asked the question.