Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:23:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2d08f64b9feba3dd97a3d0a0f4f6b59cd543783a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
	<vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
	<4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
	<vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
	<4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
	<vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
	<49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org>
	<vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me>
	<vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me> <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me>
	<vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:23:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2563854"; 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: 3641
Lines: 36

Am Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:53:38 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some
>>>>>>>> other HHH that doesn’t abort.
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final
>>>>>>> halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to
>>>>>> DDD, which then halts.
>>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.

How do they differ?

>>>> If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test is
>>>> performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>>> The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
>> I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
> DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself emulating DDD and DDD emulated by
> HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
Those are the same DDD. The difference lies with the simulators.

-- 
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.