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

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?
 This is an incorrect Boolean question when posed to H because
both TRUE and FALSE are the wrong answer when posed to H.
 CONTEXT MATTERS EVEN TO TURING MACHINES