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: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:03:26 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <53d583bd6681670d2f8348c24b6ec8b0792528e8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
 <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:03:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1991749"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4969
Lines: 65

On 11/11/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>> 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. 
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction
> final halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
> HOW STUPID CAN POSSIBLY YOU BE?
> WHEN I CORRECT YOU DOZENS OF TIMES YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE.

But the emulation by HHH isn't the measure that a Decider is supposed to 
use, just showing your ignorance of what you talk about.

The fact that you don't undetstand this shows who is the STUPID one here,

You keep on trying to "correct" people to your FALSE strawmen, just 
proving that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar.

> 
>> But the HHH that simulates DDD does in fact abort
>> and not simulate itself aborting.
>>
> 
>