Re: Pathological self-reference changes the meaning of the same finite string

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.

 That computer science people are ignorant of these things
makes them incorrect. You cannot correctly ignore context
on the basis that you are unaware that it makes a difference.

That olcott thinks that the x86 language has the same properties as English, is an error that not even a beginner in computer science would make.

 "This sentence is not true" is not true because
it is not a truth-bearer.
 The exact same sentence applied to itself
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
One level of indirect reference CHANGES EVERYTHING.

Irrelevant counter example.
1) x86 does not have all the properties that English has.
2) There is no self-reference in HHH (when correctly programmed, so, not knowing its own address).
3) There is no extra level of indirection, because there is no self-reference.

 The same thing is occurring with simulating termination
analyzer HHH for input DDD.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
The problem is not in DDD. This is a simpler example.
HHH should process its *input*, not knowing whether that input uses the same algorithm as used by HHH itself. The code of HHH, when simulated by HHH, should be considered as a copy of the original code, not as the code of HHH itself. In fact, the simulated HHH does not need to be an exact copy of the simulating HHH, it is sufficient that it uses the same algorithm.
That is a fact that olcott ignores, which makes that he gets different results for the same input depending on whether HHH or HHH1 simulates the input. His confusion is enhanced because he places the code of the simulated HHH and the simulating HHH in the same memory location. But that is an artifact that should be ignored. It would help a lot to remove this confusion when the input for HHH really would be indeed a finite string containing the whole program, or at least to place the simulated HHH is a different memory location from the simulating HHH.
The claim that there is a self reference in the question "Does this input describe a halting program", is equivalent to the claim that the question "Does this person have blue eyes?" has a self-reference. There is no self reference, not when the person is your twin brother, not when you need eyes to see the colour, not even when that person is the same person as the one that is asked the question.