Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v5einq$1j1no$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:03:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1672952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19roolphLSyoinT1cGRKZry"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R5hgCNYSH/JcEPUUde+NRecO46E=
In-Reply-To: <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3651

On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>> 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.
>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
> 
> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
> should terminate because it's a decider.  

We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise
we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben.

We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as
correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that
deny verified facts.

I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100%
complete closure on each point before moving on to the next
point.

> You're saying that when H0 is
> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall seeing anybody
> arguing against that.
> 

Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until
after we have 100% closure on the prior point.

> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
> else would argue against that, either.
> 

I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not
tolerating the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever.

>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer