Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@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: 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: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:25:55 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:25:55 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1940917"; 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: 4267 Lines: 47 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: >>>> On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD >>>>>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It >>>>>>> is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking >>>>>>> years. >>>>>> That difference is not due to DDD. >>>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD >>>>> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state. >>>> No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the >>>> finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott >>>> is an idiot but it does not. >>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD unequivocally >>> entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state WITHIN THE >>> SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE. >> The expression "The semantic property" is incorrect when it is not >> clear from context which semantic property is meant. Note that a string >> per se does not have semantic properties, they all come from >> interpretrations. > That you pretend to not understand my clear words does not mean that my > words are not clear. Sigh. Mikko didn’t write anything about not understanding. Also, way to blame the receiver for bad communication. > The fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship with HHH cannot be > simply ignored and must be accounted for. Same as any other kind of relationship. > 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. But the HHH that simulates DDD does in fact abort and not simulate itself aborting. -- 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.