Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: behavior and description --- All rebuttals have been pure bluster
 V3
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 21:49:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v8uncm$255gv$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8tcqm$1l0av$1@dont-email.me>
 <9cdb7748ed3906718c6fa7354c81479c24c76885@i2pn2.org>
 <v8tlov$1nl6s$1@dont-email.me>
 <98c9d58d07784afeb7df85b85d468edc2c5a82ab@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ujp7$20c5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <931e370770170d2392a73c564552d84270526201@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 04:49:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6826d85dca534e829aa60949a8b0d61";
	logging-data="2266655"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HBSOSeT4w9W08HKMUHq4d"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zs4Ed0kOL2JHbeLpA+3jUsvumIg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <931e370770170d2392a73c564552d84270526201@i2pn2.org>

On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>> reach
>>>>>> its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to further
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior of 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within and not the behavior that
>>>>>> its finite string input specifies.
>>>>
>>>>> The construction is not recursive if the description does not describe
>>>>> the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend on the
>>>>> decider, as they should all give the same answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is far too vague.
>>>>
>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
>>>> of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
>>>> sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
>>>> ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
>>>> instruction of DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation of the 
>>
>> HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
>> of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
>> the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.
> 
> Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
> 

It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
properly by the correct execution trace of the second
DDD derived by the second HHH.

*This has been proven this way for three freaking years*



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