Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:09:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <362f2ba28fcccea33d532b639a58e785aa1fdde0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 01:09:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2350234"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3607
Lines: 46

On 11/13/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> 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
> IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.

And that is the DDD that calls the HHH that gives the answer.

Using any other DDD is just showing that you are just a damned liar.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> Is stupidly wrong to return 7 for sum(2,3).
> 
> 

Yes, just as it is wrong to return 0 for DDD, since the program DDD will 
halt if its HHH returns 0.

PERIOD.