Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:25:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
	<vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
	<4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
	<vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:25:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1940917"; 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: 4267
Lines: 47

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It
>>>>>>> is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> That difference is not due to DDD.
>>>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
>>>>> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.
>>>> No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the
>>>> finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott
>>>> is an idiot but it does not.
>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD unequivocally
>>> entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state WITHIN THE
>>> SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>> The expression "The semantic property" is incorrect when it is not
>> clear from context which semantic property is meant. Note that a string
>> per se does not have semantic properties, they all come from
>> interpretrations.
> That you pretend to not understand my clear words does not mean that my
> words are not clear.
Sigh. Mikko didn’t write anything about not understanding. Also, way to
blame the receiver for bad communication.

> The fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship with HHH cannot be
> simply ignored and must be accounted for.
Same as any other kind of relationship.

> The actual computation itself
> does involve HHH emulating itself emulating DDD. To simply pretend that
> this does not occur seems dishonest.
Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other HHH
that doesn’t abort. But the HHH that simulates DDD does in fact abort
and not simulate itself aborting.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.