Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:15:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fd720871dd9e899c5ae2ae94388b131e4ecf5152@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<53d583bd6681670d2f8348c24b6ec8b0792528e8@i2pn2.org>
	<vguk72$1e0mg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:15:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2078167"; 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: 3637
Lines: 36

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:05:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/11/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:

>>>>> 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,
> DDD emulated by HHH SPECIFIES THAT HHH MUST emulate itself emulating
> DDD.
> DDD emulated by HHH1 SPECIFIES THAT HHH1 MUST NOT emulate itself
> emulating DDD.
You can leave out the "emulated by". It says right in the code of DDD
what should be simulated. 

-- 
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.