Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 27. Jul 2024, 04:17:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <e15a91a1de4049c6bb733a8c59e1446b3bbc1f9d@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/26/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/26/2024 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/26/2024 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within.
>
It is only accountable for computing the mapping from the
input finite string to the actual behavior that this finite
string specifies.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
HHH(DDD) is only accountable for the actual behavior that
its input specifies and is not accountable for the behavior
of the computation that itself is contained within:
the directly executed DDD();
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
>
Two complete simulations show a pair of identical TMD's are
simulating a pair of identical inputs.  We can see this thus
proving recursive simulation.
>
When we understand that embedded_H is accountable for the
behavior of its input and not accountable for the behavior
of the computation that itself is contained within then
we understand that embedded_H is necessarily correct to
transition to its own Ĥ.qn state.
>
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>
>
_DDD()
[00002177] 55               push ebp
[00002178] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[0000217a] 6877210000       push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f] e853f4ffff       call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002184] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d               pop ebp
[00002188] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
>
_main()
[00002197] 55               push ebp
[00002198] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[0000219a] e8d8ffffff       call 00002177 ; call DDD
[0000219f] 33c0             xor eax,eax
[000021a1] 5d               pop ebp
[000021a2] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0012) [000021a2]
>
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002197][001037e9][00000000] 55         push ebp
[00002198][001037e9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[0000219a][001037e5][0000219f] e8d8ffffff call 00002177 ; call DDD
[00002177][001037e1][001037e9] 55         push ebp
[00002178][001037e1][001037e9] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][001037dd][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][001037d9][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>
 
// executed HHH emulates 1st instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:10388d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>
// emulated HHH emulates 2nd instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:14e2b5
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
 The above has the same behavior pattern as infinite recursion
shown below.
Nope, Not if HHH is a conditional simulator, as it needs to be to do the abort to give an answer.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a IGNORANT PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
Neglecting the conditional nature of HHH just proves you are just a stupid liar.

 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 _Infinite_Recursion()
[0000215a] 55               push ebp
[0000215b] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[0000215d] e8f8ffffff       call 0000215a ; recursive call
[00002162] 5d               pop ebp
[00002163] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0010) [00002163]
 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
[0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55               push ebp
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff       call 0000215a
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55               push ebp
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff       call 0000215a
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 
[00002184][001037e1][001037e9] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002187][001037e5][0000219f] 5d         pop ebp
[00002188][001037e9][00000000] c3         ret
[0000219f][001037e9][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000021a1][001037ed][00000018] 5d         pop ebp
[000021a2][001037f1][00000000] c3         ret
Number of Instructions Executed(10071) == 150 Pages
>
  

Date Sujet#  Auteur
26 Jul 24 * No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within45olcott
26 Jul 24 +* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within6olcott
26 Jul 24 i+* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within3olcott
27 Jul 24 ii+- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)1Richard Damon
27 Jul 24 ii`- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
27 Jul 24 i+- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)1Richard Damon
27 Jul 24 i`- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
27 Jul 24 +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (Unless that is its input)1Richard Damon
27 Jul 24 +* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within32Mikko
27 Jul 24 i`* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within31olcott
27 Jul 24 i +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
28 Jul 24 i +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is what the input descriibes1Richard Damon
28 Jul 24 i `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within28Mikko
29 Jul 24 i  `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within27olcott
29 Jul 24 i   +* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within19joes
29 Jul 24 i   i`* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within18olcott
30 Jul 24 i   i `* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within17joes
30 Jul 24 i   i  `* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within16olcott
30 Jul 24 i   i   +* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within4Fred. Zwarts
30 Jul 24 i   i   i`* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within3olcott
31 Jul 24 i   i   i +- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is its input1Richard Damon
31 Jul 24 i   i   i `- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
30 Jul 24 i   i   +* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within10joes
30 Jul 24 i   i   i`* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within9olcott
30 Jul 24 i   i   i +* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within7joes
30 Jul 24 i   i   i i`* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within6olcott
31 Jul 24 i   i   i i +* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within4Mike Terry
31 Jul 24 i   i   i i i`* Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within3olcott
31 Jul 24 i   i   i i i +- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is its input1Richard Damon
31 Jul 24 i   i   i i i `- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
31 Jul 24 i   i   i i `- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
31 Jul 24 i   i   i `- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is its input1Richard Damon
31 Jul 24 i   i   `- Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is its input1Richard Damon
30 Jul 24 i   +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within UNLESS that is what the input actually describes1Richard Damon
30 Jul 24 i   `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within6Mikko
31 Jul 24 i    `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within5olcott
1 Aug 24 i     `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within4Mikko
1 Aug 24 i      `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within3olcott
1 Aug 24 i       +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1joes
2 Aug 24 i       `- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Mikko
27 Jul 24 +- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Fred. Zwarts
27 Jul 24 `* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within4Mad Hamish
27 Jul 24  +* Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within DETAILS2olcott
28 Jul 24  i`- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within DETAILS unless that is what the input is representing.1Richard Damon
28 Jul 24  `- Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal