Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:28:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5er86$134dk$1@i2pn2.org>
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> <v5einq$1j1no$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:28:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1151412"; 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: 3008
Lines: 34

Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> 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.
>> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
>> should terminate because it's a decider.
Thanks.

> We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct.
It IS correct.

>> 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.
What other point? This has been your only content for the last month.

>> 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.
You said H0 doesn't terminate.

-- 
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik 
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim