Re: behaviour and description

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 PROGRAM DDD that it is given. SInce it doesn't actual do that, despite your attempts to lie about it, your claim doesn't matter.
Since HHH does actual emulate the instructions of HHH when DDD calls it (or you haven't shown any evidence that it does, just that x86UTM does when it runs HHH) and that it fails to be correct by aborting its emulation of DDD, means your arguement is just BOGUS.
YOu are just proving you don't actually understand how the x86 processor works, and thus how the language that describes it works.
The trace of the emulation of a call to HHH produce the METHOD that generates the result of HHH, not the results of HHH.