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

On 9/2/24 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/1/2024 6:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-31 12:26:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/30/2024 8:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-30 12:57:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/30/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-29 17:53:44 +0000, olcott said:
>

I just proved that the basic notion of finite strings
having unique meanings independently of their context
is incorrect.

>
The context is the halting problem.

>
The behavior of
the directly executed DDD and executed HHH
is different from the behavior of
the emulated DDD and the emulated HHH

>
The correct behaviour is the computation that the user wants to
ask about. If the input string specifies a different behaviour
then the input string is worng, not the behaviour.
>

>
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
And in the exact same way Bill wants to get the
sum of 5+6 from sum(3,2).

>
If Bill wants to get the sum of 5 + 6 then there are two possibilites:
either you give him a tool that can give him the sum and instrunctions
of use of that tool; or you don't, in which case Bill may ask someone
else.
>

 Bill cannot get the sum of 5+6 from sum(3,2)
the same way that HHH cannot report on the
behavior of the directly executed DDD() on
the basis of DDD emulated by HHH where DDD and
HHH have a pathological relationship.

So you admit that HHH can't get the right answer

 For three years people have tried to get away with
simply ignoring the elephant in the room of the
pathological relationship between DDD and HHH.

The problem you have is that the pathological relationship doesn't change the correct answer to the acutal OBJECTIVE question, just makes it impossible for this HHH to get the right answer.
And, DDD doesn't even have a real pathological relationship, like D did.
If you programed HHH to simple return 1, it would be correct, so there ARE HHH that correctly answer the question, just not ones built with your broken method.

 They keep assuming that the behavior of DDD with
a pathological relationship to HHH must be the same
behavior as DDD having no pathological relationship
to HHH1 AGAINST THE VERIFIED FACTS.

But it IS and you are accepted that fafact by not showing the instruciton that WAS correctly emulated that differed in behavior,

 When someone contradicts the verified facts this is
the most certain way to determine that they are not
telling the truth.

Right, so *YOU* are the one prove to be the LIAR, as YOU are the one that refuses to even look at the facts, because you have brainwashed yourself.

 it now seems like they may have been too indoctrinated
to pay close enough attention to see that their position
directly contradicts verified facts.

Nope, we point out the errors in your "analysis", but you can not handle them.
We look a level deeper than what you talk about, and show the errors, you can't go to that level because it shows your error

 Because these things are so dead obvious to me it initially
seemed that they were contradicting the verified facts out
of sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
 

No, they are "dead obvious" to you  because your brain is DEAD from being throughly washed of all ability to reason. This is why you just refuse to try to prove any of your assertions, because you subsconcious knows that to try to do so will reveal your house of cards that your lies are built on.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving how stupid and ignorant you are, and that you just continue to LIE to try to cover that up.