Re: behaviour and description --- Lying Peter

On 8/6/24 10:41 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, you just don't know what a correct emulation means.
Sorry Charlie, Truth only want ACTUAL truth, not made up statements.

 *This has been proven this way for three freaking years*
 

Nope, you have LIED in your claim about it for three years.