XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/4/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/3/25 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/3/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/3/25 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/3/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/3/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/3/2025 12:13 PM, wij wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 2025-08-04 at 00:45 +0800, wij wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-03 at 11:13 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2025 11:00 AM, wij wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2025-08-03 at 10:29 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Self-reference has been the focus of my primary research   
   >>>>>>>>>>> into the philosophy of:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> (a) logic   
   >>>>>>>>>>> (b) computation and   
   >>>>>>>>>>> (c) math for 22 years.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I began with the Liar Paradox.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> That is why I own the domain LiarParadox.org.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   >>>>>>>>>>> false.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Just like Prolog correctly detects and rejects   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the infinitely recursive structure of the Liar   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Paradox HHH(DD) correctly detects and rejects   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the infinitely recursive structure of its input.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I had explicitly put it in ClassGuidelines.txt to suggest   
   >>>>>>>>>> 'self- reference' is   
   >>>>>>>>>> impossible to detect in (TM equvilent) programming langage.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> *Yet the equivalent of self-reference is detectable*   
   >>>>>>>>> HHH does not know its own machine address so it cannot tell   
   >>>>>>>>> that DDD is actually calling itself. What it sees is that DDD   
   >>>>>>>>> is calling the same function with the same parameter twice   
   >>>>>>>>> in sequence.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So, is HHH a function? Can a function D4 call it?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> void D4() {   
   >>>>>>>    HHH(D4);   
   >>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Will HHH be stuck in infinite recursion?   
   >>>>>>> How do you conclude HHH(D4)=0 is correct?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> _D4()   
   >>>>>> [000021c3] 55             push ebp   
   >>>>>> [000021c4] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   >>>>>> [000021c6] 68c3210000     push 000021c3 // push D4   
   >>>>>> [000021cb] e8f3f3ffff     call 000015c3 // call HHH   
   >>>>>> [000021d0] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   >>>>>> [000021d3] 5d             pop ebp   
   >>>>>> [000021d4] c3             ret   
   >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021d4]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> D4 correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly get   
   >>>>>> past its own machine address [000021cb] thus the   
   >>>>>> input to HHH(D4) does specify non-halting behavior   
   >>>>>> no matter what the D4() that is not an input does.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope. As if HHH ever returns an answer because it doesn't do the   
   >>>>> correct simulation and aborts, D4 will be halting.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Like always you remain a despicable lying scumbag and change   
   >>>> the words that I said as the basis of your rebuttal.   
   >>>   
   >>> Only changing them to the definitions of the problem from your lies   
   >>> about it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I really sincerely hope that this does not get you condemned   
   >>>> to Hell. You certainly don't deserve that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No, the problem that you don't understand is that the words you use   
   >>> have a defined meaning, and in particular,   
   >> Yes the words that I said do have a defined meaning   
   >> in the x86 language and you deny this only because   
   >> you are a despicable scumbag liar.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, they don't, as you code doesn't have meaning as it isn't complete,   
   > and doesn't definie (in x86 langugage) what HHH is.   
   >   
      
   "D4 correctly emulated by HHH" is a sufficiently   
   complete definition of HHH even if you never heard   
   of the word "emulated". You remain a liar. I hope   
   that this does not cost your soul.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)