Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Re: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same
 finite string
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 08:13:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <vb4dlp$2r7ok$6@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vb1h93$1f566$2@dont-email.me> <vb1imr$1fko8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 15:13:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2fe8748f6382997edaeece42547d6b5";
	logging-data="2989844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ay9eqm9N4a8W8sqRzkmoj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jBA7N1Pivm3f9909y76CcfYlMdU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb1imr$1fko8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8009

On 9/1/2024 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-01 10:56:34 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It doesn't really matter whether what Olcott sees. What matters is that
> his readres can see the value of his words.
> 

The link to the PhD computer science professor that agrees with me.

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