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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:35:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <af523f0e2b9e622d639d30ae3d1ae6995334b5ed@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vft8l7$25aio$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:35:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="215954"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vft8l7$25aio$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3186
Lines: 39

On 10/30/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 6:17 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>> answering.
>>
>>      I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.  Rather, as
>> I have previously pointed out, he is playing "Fetch" with anyone who is
>> prepared to play [which I am not, and nor are most other readers here].
>> A troll would perpetrate a somewhat cranky idea and then sit back an
>> watch everyone else argue to and fro without participating further, other
>> than to stoke the fires occasionally.  Peter will reply instantly to
>> anyone who will reply to him.  So, sadly, though less instantly, will
>> several others.  I suspect they are rather lonely attention seekers,
>> but as I am not a psychiatrist this is not a professional opinion.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
> *or lack of technical competence*
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
> 
> 

But only if HHH does follow the sematantics, which mean it never aborts.

Since that isn't the HHH that you have provided, all you have done is 
proved that you believe that lies are appropriate in logic, and you 
think it is ok to assume the existance of non-existent things.