Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 ---SUCCINCT
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:39:30 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vh4ti4$2qj8g$1@dont-email.me>
 <4524b9dcb46740847649bcb907a87acbac1d00da@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5e3t$2tvu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b99b4dfe14296c74eeebd76b13369648e9e6059@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5fsd$2tvu0$2@dont-email.me>
 <a39b254c0aa0260206e0c21419993ea84007f765@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5hmo$2v2hi$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ee04a00a23875dac3d741882bffbdcb81dd7acb@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5ils$2v8v9$1@dont-email.me>
 <9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5m5h$191h$1@news.muc.de> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
 <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:39:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2673299"; 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: <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4902
Lines: 90

On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are weasel words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Words whose precise meaning is difficult/impossible to pin down, 
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> deliberately so.  Politicians use these all the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH is NOT the DEFINITION of the behavior 
>>>>>> that HHH is suppoded to be reporting on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right and likewise ZFC is "supposed to include" sets that
>>>>> are members of themselves. Thus according to your reasoning
>>>>> ZFC is wrong because is directly disobeys the dogma of
>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say that?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be halucinationg.
>>>>
>>>>>> That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is the 
>>>>>> behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program described 
>>>>>> by the input, 
>>>>>
>>>>> IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY IGNORE
>>>>> THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
>>>>> EMULATING DDD
>>>>
>>>> DDD doesn't "say" anything, it is a program that defines how it will 
>>>> run.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no "emulate" instruction.
>>
>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must do as it is 
>> programmed, and that the correct emulation of it will do EXACTLY the 
>> same thing.
>>
> 
> When HHH <is> an x86 emulator
> (are you too stupid to remember this?) Then
> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
> emulate itself emulating DDD.
> 

But it *ISN'T* one if it stops its emulation before it reaches the final 
end.

Thus, you are just admitting that your logic is based on LIES.

And, the semantics of the x86 language doesn't define a piece of code to 
be an emulator, only what the actual SYNTACTIC operation of that code.

So, HHH can only be an emulator, if it actually is one, and then it 
fails to be the decider/termination analyzer.

Your logic only seems to work if your cat is a dog.

Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are.