Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<37890bcdc689d15e787a9e0853b4bc97cb6b2dfc@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:44:26 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <37890bcdc689d15e787a9e0853b4bc97cb6b2dfc@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> <ca70b6033280b57ed179cbe6792c8731217b00a6@i2pn2.org> <vgvpuj$1kv24$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:44:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2189860"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vgvpuj$1kv24$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3312 Lines: 35 On 11/12/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/12/2024 8:23 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:58:03 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>> 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 >>>>> whether HHH aborts its emulation or not. >> >> No. When the HHH that simulates DDD aborts, it also means that the HHH >> that DDD calls aborts, > > In no case does DDD emulated by any HHH that aborts at > some point or not > > does the emulated DDD ever reach its "return" instruction > final halt state. > > Disagreeing with verified facts makes you ignorant or > dishonest. > > But the partial emulation of DDD by HHH is not a proper criteria, so yoiuy are just pointing out that you are just lying about what you are doing.