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 12:21:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <v5eual$1lar1$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> <v5einq$1j1no$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5er86$134dk$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:21:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1747809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/L/8eGmIKPmlIi6lyUSL05"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kRErbOSPS8/G9+IPNFsoyetzxfQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5er86$134dk$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3836

On 6/25/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote:
> 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.
> 

*I never said that*

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

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.


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