Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 07:25:53 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <17a781f4479f0c8fb2c02d40a55e5cfa7a0f4847@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgafqv$umps$1@dont-email.me>
 <0cdb23355b23731751b9614543e8a1c257214b5a@i2pn2.org>
 <vgbskb$172co$1@dont-email.me>
 <157b13f5b452420f1bb20db458bfa7b952449ecf@i2pn2.org>
 <vgc2ju$1bqmm$1@dont-email.me>
 <585823321cf0a5e579b855438cfbf93229b233ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vgdjdq$1jr80$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7372fcf786ecb5e394cf44079e5ff126899e252@i2pn2.org>
 <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:25:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1516995"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgk26b$31qrg$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3529
Lines: 41

On 11/7/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/7/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/7/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> DDD emulated by HHH has the property that DDD never reaches
>>> its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>
>> But DDD emulated by HHH isn't an objective property of DDD.
>>
> 
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> It <is> a semantic property of that finite string pair.
> 
> 
> 

No it isn't

The semantic property is if the COMPLETE emulation of that input reaches 
the return statement, that is the definition of a semantic property in 
the field of computation.

Since HHH doesn't do a complete emulation, its result (if it answers) 
isn't the semantic property.

Note, DDD only has a sematic property if it is a COMPLETE program, so 
your "finite string" doesn't have that, since it isn't a complete program.

You are just proving that you don't understand the meaning of the words 
you are using.

You LIE about what input you need to give to HHH to actually represent 
the input you claim.

Just repeating your lies just increases the crime, and raises the heat 
of the flames you will meet.