Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ben Bacarisse Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.lang.semantics Subject: Re: Simply defining =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Followup-To: comp.theory Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 22:34:28 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 90 Message-ID: <87eeo7y4nv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> References:

<87mu2z5t9e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <877du21jk2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <877du243ra.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87pn7u2mjn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74qdnXN5DPUgb6jCnZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87364p34hf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87r1s91iyk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

<87y2mgzt40.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87h7t4zp6x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875z9jzwg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fb6f8b4aba4f1064d671ac45e08ea599"; logging-data="30678"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186J8a4fUnwBpAkvtn7Z7Yiv+P+eWxOWuA=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:qH74kXrIhZOD5KiX5GnNaGcGzJQ= sha1:aiEz/iLza/9scoksBJQOIEBNTaE= X-BSB-Auth: 1.50fbf92737ec32257be0.20200815223428BST.87eeo7y4nv.fsf@bsb.me.uk Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:22430 comp.ai.philosophy:22422 comp.ai.nat-lang:2725 olcott writes: > On 8/15/2020 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott writes: >> >>> On 8/14/2020 8:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott writes: >>>>> To specify 87 trillion functions merely requires a linked list with 87 >>>>> trillion elements. >>>> >>>> What does that look like in x86 code? And whatever answer you come up >>>> with, be sure it extends further. There must be no finite limit. This >>>> is a genuine question. I know you like to just ignore questions and >>>> move on to say more wrong stuff, but please take a moment to prove me >>>> wrong. How is this data structure implemented in x86 code? >>> >>> Any software engineer of ordinary skill in the art would be able to >>> create a linked list of memory elements of unlimited length on the >>> basis of a signed 32-bit relative jump instruction. >> >> I asked what the data structure would look like. Jumps have nothing to >> do with that. What does the data structure for an essentially unbounded >> linked list look like? > > We have an unlimited number of memory address sized blocks of memory > where the beginning of each block has a relative jump into the prior > block and the end of each block has a relative jump into the next > block. What do jumps have to do with it? You are either totally lost or you are trying to construct a distraction. Since it seems you can't describe the data structure, just show the code that changes every 0 to a 1 (these can be any fixed size) data in the list elements. This loop will make the data structure clear by showing how the code moves from one element to the next, and how the end of the list is detected. >>>> How do you choose whose claims you accept without proof? >>> >>> That I directly know how easy it is to simulate a Turing machine >>> because I studied this one >>> http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/turing.html >> >> That is not a Turing-complete implementation. > > http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt > Here is a Turing Complete adaptation, that I derived two years ago: > > All integers are specified as hexadecimal digits [0-9A-F] encoded as: > H. Each element of the quintuple is space delimited. One Turing > Machine Description language instruction per line: The original input language in Turing complete. It's the implementation that is not. > H+ HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH H+ [RL] > > States are of arbitrary finite length strings of hexadecimal digits. > Tape elements are unsigned 32-bit integers. That was a pointless change from the point of view of the TM notation. The original and your extended on are both Turing complete. (It's a odd term for a notation that simply a way of writing TMs.) And if you make corresponding changes to the implementation (I don't think you did) I very must suspect it was not more Turing complete than the original. You should stick with the casual meaning. No one will object to a bit of hand-waving on this point (unless it is somehow central to whatever it is you are claiming these days). The trouble starts when you over-specify and state, as facts, things that need to be proven. >> This all appears to be a rabbit hole down which there is nothing to be >> learned. No one doubts that something very like x86 code (as assembler, >> not machine code) can be tweaked to remove limits and would therefore be >> Turing-complete. But you were at pains to point out how this was really >> x86 code in every detail. > > My halting problem research will be presented as a program that runs > on an x86 based UTM. In what sense is this x86 "thing" U and in what sense is it a TM? Are these both PO- terms? It sounds like it's just an x86 simulator but surely not? -- Ben.