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

Op 29.aug.2024 om 19:53 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.
>

 Pathological self-reference DOES CHANGE THE SEMANTICS.
"This sentence is not true" is neither true nor false
because it is not a truth bearer.
 This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
The exact same (finite string) sentence applied to a
copy of itself becomes true because the inner sentence
is not a truth-bearer.

You are changing the subject to irrelevant other subjects.
There is no pathological self-reference in HHH. HHH must decide about
its input, not about itself.
It is clear that you are completely confused, or distracting the attention from the fact that you have been proven incorrect.

 

>
Fred thinks the when DDD is emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language and this causes an
emulated HHH to not halt then the emulation is wrong.

>
Olcott has a strange problem with the English language. He is unable to express himself. When he talks about what other people say, they never recognize themselves in his words. When he talks about other things he always expresses himself in self-contradictory ways. It is not clear to me whether this is only a problem in expressing himself, it looks as if he also has a problem in understanding English.
>
I never said such a thing.
I said that a finite string has a unique meaning according to the semantics of the x86 language.

 I just proved that the basic notion of finite strings
having unique meanings independently of their context
is incorrect.
 Anyone that studies linguistic meaning knows that context
does change the meaning. That you are ignorant of this
IS NOT MY MISTAKE !!!

Again an irrelevant change of subject. (Do you know the term 'straw men'?)
You try again to get away with changing the meaning of words.
The definition of the semantics of the x86 language does nowhere specify that the interpretation of a finite string depends on the context.
That other language have such dependencies is irrelevant.