Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---SUCCINCT
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:51:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <14e3854f191fe4b808d5efaddefa44f24b9b578a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
	<9b99b4dfe14296c74eeebd76b13369648e9e6059@i2pn2.org>
	<vh5fsd$2tvu0$2@dont-email.me>
	<a39b254c0aa0260206e0c21419993ea84007f765@i2pn2.org>
	<vh5hmo$2v2hi$1@dont-email.me>
	<8ee04a00a23875dac3d741882bffbdcb81dd7acb@i2pn2.org>
	<vh5ils$2v8v9$1@dont-email.me>
	<9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
	<vh5m5h$191h$1@news.muc.de> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
	<9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
	<vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
	<0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
	<vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
	<463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
	<vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
	<9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
	<vh957l$3rg98$1@dont-email.me>
	<ae415d1a0f07aa76d9a0dd2ef1078ffeb9b03b32@i2pn2.org>
	<vh96c2$3rlks$1@dont-email.me>
	<20671ab52fff727d5bcad5a85db05c68774fbbc5@i2pn2.org>
	<vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
	<46c9921e9ad206dc2bf178fda7b1d19f94f44829@i2pn2.org>
	<vhad21$2jm4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:51:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2726117"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5425
Lines: 73

Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:17:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNORE THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITSELF EMULATING DDD

>>>> Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.
>> WHich isn't a complete program, so a LIE to call it one.
>> 
> I never called it a complete program and you swear your own allegiance
> to the father of lies by saying that I did.
I hereby swear allegiance to the father of lies.

Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?

>>> The axioms of the system are the x86 language nitwit.
>> Which means that the above is an incorrect statememt.
>> By the "axions" you claim, the PROGRAM DDD, that comes from the Halt7.c
>> file, is HALTING as it calls the HHH that does some partial emulation
>> and returns to DDD and thus DDD returns.
> The C function DDD partially or fully emulated by any HHH never reaches
> its own "return" instruction final halt state.

Why doesn't the inner HHH halt?

>>> HHH applies to axioms to its input proving that DDD emulated by HHH
>>> cannot possibly ever reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state
>>> no matter what any partial or compete x86 emulator HHH does.
>> Nope, becuase there are no axioms like that to even APPLY.
> Sure there are the x86 language provides all of the axioms that requires
> HHH to emulate the first four instructions of DDD then if any more
> instructions are to be emulated HHH must at least begin emulating itself
> emulating DDD.
The further instructions of HHH do need to be simulated as part of the
code of DDD. DDD is not done with the call until the inner HHH returns,
which we know it does as it is the same program as the outer simulator
(which shall be a decider), whereupon DDD will halt, just like if it
weren't simulated. 

>>> I hope not that is why I ask you to repent.
Do not preoccupy yourself with others' salvation.

> In a court of law you must tell the truth THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing
> but the truth.  That you fail to tell the whole truth about the behavior
> of DDD emulated by HHH would break this oath.
This is not a court.

> I don't see how you can twist your understanding of scripture so that
> you think you can get away with deceptive trollish head games.
Nobody was quoting scripture.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.