Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:53:38 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
 <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
 <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org>
 <vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me> <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:53:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1eac21b2b931973af1a7b8c06e3541b3";
	logging-data="3217447"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NA+5N/EcgnMMhBrgFPDlO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z1FIM3yiCWkgcWVrQAtroxvMBGQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241114-6, 11/14/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3843

On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final 
>>>>>> halt
>>>>>> state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to DDD,
>>>>> which then halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
>>>
>>> If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
>>> is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>>>
>>
>> The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
>> IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.
> 
> I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
> 

That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*


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