Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:00:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9d47c87ba71738f0aa05a106d0d65be4604ca066@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8tcqm$1l0av$1@dont-email.me>
 <9cdb7748ed3906718c6fa7354c81479c24c76885@i2pn2.org>
 <v8tlov$1nl6s$1@dont-email.me>
 <98c9d58d07784afeb7df85b85d468edc2c5a82ab@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ujp7$20c5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <931e370770170d2392a73c564552d84270526201@i2pn2.org>
 <v8umte$2518r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 03:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1715116"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8umte$2518r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3327
Lines: 60

On 8/6/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>>> reach
>>>>>>> its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to further
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior 
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within and not the behavior 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> its finite string input specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The construction is not recursive if the description does not 
>>>>>> describe
>>>>>> the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend on the
>>>>>> decider, as they should all give the same answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is far too vague.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
>>>>> sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
>>>>> ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
>>>>> instruction of DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation of the 
>>>
>>> HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
>>> of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
>>> the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.
>>
>> Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
>>
> 
> It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
> properly by the correct execution trace of the second
> DDD derived by the second HHH.

Nope, you just don't know what a correct emulation means.

Sorry Charlie, Truth only want ACTUAL truth, not made up statements.

> 
> *This has been proven this way for three freaking years*
> 
> 

Nope, you have LIED in your claim about it for three years.