Path: ...!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: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same
 finite string
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:10:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <vavf9p$12m8t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <varve2$ds5d$1@dont-email.me> <vav4ie$10jsm$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavdgq$11uqn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:10:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="704a0de50af0d27d19f59cdc9b0cd400";
	logging-data="1136925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VfhNVlP8xJ4rB3uEjSKjA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SL9dSgTUDqguqM7b8vwPNPRS7qo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vavdgq$11uqn$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6905

On 8/31/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 31.aug.2024 om 15:07 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/30/2024 3:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> For Turing machine deciders it is true:
>>
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford, 2018 0
>> Objective and Subjective Specifications
>> Eric C.R. Hehner
>> Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> "Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?"
 >> This is an incorrect YES/NO question when posed to Carol>> because 
both YES and NO are the wrong answer when posed
>> to Carol.
> 
> There is no reason why we can't ask the question to Carol.
> If Carol is a machine that can only say "yes", then there is a correct 
> answer to the question: "no", but Carol cannot give that answer.
> 

When posed to Carol both YES and NO are the wrong answer
thus proving that the question is incorrect when the
context of who is asked is not ignored.

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