XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/4/2025 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/4/25 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > IN other wwrds you are stipulating that your HHH is DEFINED to do a   
   > correct simulation, and thus NEVER abort, and thus isn't a decider?   
   >   
      
   Well that is an improvement.   
   I am stipulating that HHH emulates 7 steps of D4   
   according to the definition of the x86 language.   
      
   More precisely HHH emulates the first four steps   
   of D4 and then emulates an instance of itself   
   emulating another instance of D4 until it reaches   
   the call 000015c3 instruction of this instance.   
      
   --   
   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)