Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the semantics of the same
 finite string.
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 08:44:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vaseri$7oen$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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> <vaqcj8$28ni$3@dont-email.me>
 <varu9s$dnl6$1@dont-email.me> <vase50$ftut$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:44:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="254423"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vase50$ftut$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6750
Lines: 126

On 8/30/24 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/30/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-29 17:53:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pathological self-reference DOES CHANGE THE SEMANTICS.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>>
>>> "This sentence is not true" is neither true nor false
>>> because it is not a truth bearer.
>>
>> Its meaning never changed.
>>
> 
> I showed you the before any after, that was before
> it changed this is the after"
> 
> *This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true". is true*
> 
> It changed because of one level of indirection applied to
> pathological self-reference.
> 

But the PROGRAM has no "levels of indiretion", so that doesn't apply.

PROGRAMS are, by definition, self-contained, and thus need (and can't 
use) references.

The copy of HHH in DDD doesn't say use whatever HHH is trying to decide 
this, it is saying use the HHH that this DDD was built on, which can't 
change if you try to give this input to another decider.

If you try to make it do so, it just shows that you system isn't 
actually asking the question you claim it is, which *IS* part of the 
problem with you setup.

The "input" "DDD" must be a complete and defined program, which means 
that the HHH that is in the system is FIXED, and thus talking about some 
other HHH being there is just a LIE that violates the rules of the system.

You are just proving that you are ignorant of the field you are talking 
about and trying to be intentionally deceptive to pass off your lies, 
but failing miserably because your deception is so obvious the main 
person it is deceiving is YOU.