Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 25. Jun 2024, 04:38:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>
You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say.
>
>
You said that D correctly simulated by H must
have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
>
Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>
NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>
>
Honest mistake or liar?
>
The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
D correctly simulated by H1
*the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>
This is not the same behavior as
D correctly simulated by H
*the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>
And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct executions trace?
D correctly simulated by H
*the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D)
*the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer