Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter

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.
*This has been proven this way for three freaking years*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer