Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's rebuttals have been pure bluster V3

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's rebuttals have been pure bluster V3
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 07. Aug 2024, 04:00:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <15ded861fa978eb287e35a859118e7ed48ae6d84@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about.

 *This has been proven this way for three freaking years*
  
Nope, that has been your LIE for the last 3 year.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Aug 24 * Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point26olcott
6 Aug 24 +* Re: behaviour and description18joes
6 Aug 24 i`* Re: behaviour and description17olcott
7 Aug 24 i `* Re: behaviour and description16Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i  `* Re: behaviour and description --- Trust Mike?15olcott
7 Aug 24 i   `* Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter14Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i    +* Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter2olcott
7 Aug 24 i    i`- Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i    +* Re: behavior and description --- All Rebuttals have been pure bluster2olcott
7 Aug 24 i    i`- Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's Rebuttals have been pure bluster1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i    `* Re: behavior and description --- All rebuttals have been pure bluster V39olcott
7 Aug 24 i     `* Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's rebuttals have been pure bluster V38Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i      `* Re: behavior and description --- Rebuttals have been pure bluster V37olcott
7 Aug 24 i       `* Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's Rebuttals have been pure bluster V36Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i        `* Re: behavior and description --- Richard still only has pure bluster5olcott
7 Aug 24 i         +* Re: behavior and description --- Peter still only has pure bluster and lies3Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i         i`* Re: behavior and description --- All of the code is here it is just hard to find2olcott
8 Aug 24 i         i `- Re: behavior and description --- All of the code is here it is just hard to find (No its not, no HHH given)1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i         `- Re: behavior and description --- Richard still only has pure bluster1Mikko
7 Aug 24 +- Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point FAILED.1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 +* Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point3Mikko
7 Aug 24 i`* Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point2olcott
8 Aug 24 i `- Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point1Mikko
7 Aug 24 `* Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point3Fred. Zwarts
7 Aug 24  `* Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point2olcott
8 Aug 24   `- Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point1Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal