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

On 8/31/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 Is isomorphic to:
Can a Turing machine decider H return a correct Boolean value corresponding to the actual behavior of an input D encoded to
do the opposite of whatever value is returned?

Nope, Turing Machines are deterministic entities, "Carol" is a will full being. And the input to the Turing Machine is a fixed finite string for which there IS a correct answer.
Note, the question being applied to the Turing Machine is *NOT* that meta question above (which would be an improper question) but a specific instance of the Halting question, does this input halt when it is run.
That question is valid and objective and has a single correct answer. The input was just built such that we know that THIS particular decider will get it wrong.
Being a level off in what you are looking at seems to be a commom problem for you.

 This is an incorrect Boolean question when posed to H because
both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer when posed to H.

Nope, there IS a correct answer for every specific Turing Machine H, just not the one that H gives, as that machine is given a specific input that represents a specific machine.
We just can use different input to prove diffferent machines wrong, and can show that we can build such an input for ANY machine that might try to claim it is correct.

 CONTEXT MATTERS EVEN TO TURING MACHINES
 

Yes, but not here. Remember, in the Turing machine description given to H, the machine "H" is not named or refered to, only a copy of the code of H is described. That makes the question OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE, and thus not dependent on the "context" of who it is asked to.
The input doesn't change when we give it to a different version of H, which may well give the correct answer.
Only because you have tried to setup an incorrect "isomorphism" to the question do you create the subjective nature to the way you try to ask the q