Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:25:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me> References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org> <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org> <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org> <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org> <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org> <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d"; logging-data="388823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XPctzBoOALjH2jqX2d1Wv" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1T0W65OQIxosAmmd6iK87s6Q3UA= In-Reply-To: <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4111 On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> HHH0(DDD); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself. >>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt >>>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation" >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention >>>>>> to ALL of my words. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper* >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>> H0(DDD); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct* >>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language* >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct* >>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language* >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct* >>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language* >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct* >>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language* >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct* >>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language* >>>>>> >>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that >>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >>>>> >>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the >>>>> correct simulation per your stipulation, >>>> >>>> Liar >>>> >>> >>> Then where is it? >>> >> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) >> cannot possibly return. > > Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation > or correctness of emulation. > WRONG! Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree. The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal integers 2 + 3 = 5. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer