Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- TYPO
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:18:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 14:18:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c99c96db3ca54ad7ebeb53cde955872b";
	logging-data="3430417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18joHEIbRo0jWEn7g44mnV6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jm+bVSW2p0R+wrstdcDRKlLWfVE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241101-2, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 8376

On 11/1/2024 6:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-10-31 12:53:04 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 10/31/2024 5:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-31 01:20:40 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>>>
>>>> On 30/10/2024 23:35, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/30/24 8:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here*
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that stupid
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that ignorant
>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is not your ADD
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of DDD 
>>>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this
>>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you think it was going to play poker?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. 
>>>>>>>>> It might figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, 
>>>>>>>>> at which point it knows that the decider might choose to abort 
>>>>>>>>> its conditional emulation to return, so it needs to emulate 
>>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that if 
>>>>>>>>> I don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I need to 
>>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to KNOW ITS OWN 
>>>>>>>> CODE.
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // page 801
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read, reread again and again to make sure that my understanding
>>>>>>>> is correct. You seems to glance at a few words before spouting 
>>>>>>>> off a canned rebuttal that does not even apply to my words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional 
>>>>>>> branches" excludes that code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not know its own code. It merely knows that the
>>>>>> machine address that it is looking at belongs to the
>>>>>> operating system. I simply don't have the fifty labor
>>>>>> years that AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs,
>>>>>> could spend on handling conditional branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The stupid aspect on your part is that even knowing
>>>>>> that its own code halts THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
>>>>>> DDD REACHING TS OWN RETURN INSTRUCTION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, HHH is NOT part of the "Operating System" so your claims are 
>>>>> just a lie,
>>>>
>>>> PO definitely has a deep-rooted problem with his thinking here.
>>>
>>> What PO does does not look like any thingking but more like what one
>>> could expect from ChatgPPT or a similar AI.
>>
>> I don't have the 50 years it would take for me to replicate the work of
>> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs.
> 
> Doesn't matter. Even if you had you could not use it to prove your false
> claim that there be some defect in some proof.
> 

There has never ever been the least trace of error
in this verified fact:

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

When we do not construe the current received view as
inherently infallible then we can begin to consider
alternative view. If naive set theory was construed
as inherently infallible then ZFC could have never
resolved Russell's Paradox.

It really is not even any change to the view of deciders
to know that they compute the mapping from their finite
string input to their own accept or reject state on the
basis of a semantic or syntactic property of this string.

It does seems to be a change to how this semantic property
is string understood when applied to the halting problem proof.

Everyone here seems to think that the semantic property of
this finite string is not the actual behavior that this finite
string actually specifies.

Instead of the actual behavior they construe it as the idealized
behavior that would occur if DDD was not calling its own termination
analyzer.

>> In other case what I am doing is called
>> isolating the independent variable.
> 
> You may call it that way. It does not look like that.
> 
>> The program under test is DDD.
>> HHH is NOT the program under test it is the tester.
> 
> So far is good. But the halting problem demands that every Turng machine
> can be put to the test.
> 

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

It is not 100% impossible to construe this as the reject criteria.
It is merely unconventional.

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