Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 20:37:22 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0378d69cb2932277db2ddeaa53635eb4ceb29e3d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7372fcf786ecb5e394cf44079e5ff126899e252@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
 <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl967$37h38$7@dont-email.me>
 <78a3858469721b9c70c6672df4bf2c03e0492d70@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmdge$3ecms$1@dont-email.me>
 <f157303ea6a750b5c42878bb6464ddca0821526d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:37:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1603715"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vgme3d$3egga$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4954
Lines: 89

On 11/8/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/8/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/8/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/7/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/7/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH has the property that DDD never reaches
>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by HHH isn't an objective property of DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you are, becuase you don't know know what the words mean.
>>>>
>>>> The semantic property is the results of the COMPLETE emulation of 
>>>> the input given to HHH, 
>>>
>>> That you keep going back to the moronic idea of completely
>>> emulating a non-terminating input makes you look quite stupid.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>>
>> It is the DEFINITION of a semantic property.
>>
> 
> *You yourself have already disagreed with that*
> 
> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>  >>
>  >> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH
>  >> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.
>  >
>  > Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>  > emulation of that input would do, even if its own programming
>  > only lets it emulate a part of that.
>  >
> 

So, you don't understand what an "unbound emulation" is.

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.

An "Unbound Emulation" is a term of art that means an emulation that 
proceeds for an unbouned number of steps, in lay-terms, and infinite 
number of steps.

That is the same as "Completely".

>> You are just proving your stupidity by judging things by your un- 
>> informed and incorrect opinion rather than the definitions.
>>
>> Sorry, you are just proving how utterly stupid you are and that you 
>> are nothing but a pathological liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> not its partial emulation, and the complete emulation is of the DDD 
>>>> using THAT HHH, the one that aborts and returns the answer if that 
>>>> is the one you are claiming to be giving the right answer.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity and ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>