Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:04:53 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 330
Message-ID: <vg7sdl$cbfk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me> <vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 14:04:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2506e5f9c3d8310dc0ce37006e161f6";
	logging-data="404980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RKcNv8UCdxy6CCTyMr9ns"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PYwGCdJNcYOMPjh2jwF8r4kBTlg=
Bytes: 14918

On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/2/2024 5:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-01 13:18:48 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> No, but its relevance to Linz' proof is very thin.
> 
> When the main motive of people like Richard is to derail
> any chance of mutual agreement I cannot proceed with all
> of the steps achieving mutual agreement on each step one
> at a time in their mandatory prerequisite order.

You don't know motives of other people unless they tell. And even if
they do tell you can't know whether they tell truthfully. It is known
that people may be mistaken about their motives and that they rarely
if ever know all their moteives.

> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unless and until you have complete and total perfect
> understanding the above is perfectly correct I cannot even
> begin showing relevance to Linz.

To agree about an ambiguous text tends to produce more harm than benefit
and should be avoided unless one can be sure that one knows who will get
the harm and who the benefit.

>>> When we do not construe the current received view as
>>> inherently infallible then we can begin to consider
>>> alternative view.
>> 
>> You can call a strawman deception (or an attempt of one) an altenative
>> view but it is still a strawman deception.
> 
> THE FREAKING SUBJECT OF THE FREAKING THREAD IS THE PHILOSOPHY
> OF COMPUTATION.

Strawman deception is a valid topic but not a valid method of
philosophical discussion.

Also note that the philosophy of philosphy of computation is a
part of the philosphy of computation.

>>> If naive set theory was construed as inherently infallible then
>>> ZFC could have never resolved Russell's Paradox.
>> 
>> There is no point in construing an inconsistent theory as inherently
>> infallible.
> 
> None-the-less everyone here continues to do that. Everyone here
> takes the current received view on the theory of computation is
> if it came directly from God himself. They cannot begin to imagine
> the tiniest little trace of any error what-so-ever in the current
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========