Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 12:56:34 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vb1h93$1f566$2@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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> <vavf9p$12m8t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 12:56:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7fa2d898dd0e115b06a69d01cdb214f";
	logging-data="1545414"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rBEXvoaUbM18ASDeeEyJF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Sm4JDGKfgt5QbffvlHmnYeKXEPc=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vavf9p$12m8t$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7288

Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:10 schreef olcott:
> 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.

When Carol is programmed to say 'yes', then 'no' is the correct answer, 
but Carol can only respond with the incorrect 'yes'.
Similarly, when HHH is programmed to abort and say 'non-halting', then 
the correct answer would be 'halting', but HHH can only respond with the 
incorrect 'non-halting'.

But I am afraid that it is over your head to see this.