Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:44:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0826f6bb09e5b206ae0ab193da1bef1bb3ff9367@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <df39c8964ec0606945669db5d6803fc317986709@i2pn2.org>
 <v62j7b$21hke$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:44:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2007607"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v62j7b$21hke$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3074
Lines: 45

On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86
>>>>> language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a
>>>>> sin according to Christ.
>> Better repent then.
>>
>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is incorrect
>>> when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is
>>> correct.
>> What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?
>> Can you show the C code where it aborts?
>>
> Yes but I won't.

Because it proves you wrong!

> 
>>> DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
>>> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
>> Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.
>>
> 
> Aborted meaning immediately stops running.
> 

Nope, Aborted meaning the emulation stops emulating.

HHH can't abort the actual running of DDD, only its emulation of it.

>>> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly emulated
>>> by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
> 
>> Except for the outer call to HHH from main.
>>
> HHH stops running after aborting its input.
>