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

On 8/6/24 10:47 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.
>
YOu are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about.
>
You don't even seem to understand what the program DDD is.
>

>
Since everyone here besides me doesn't know Jack shit about
the x86 language they think that they can get away with a
fake rebuttal based on pure bluster. Even Mike is trying to
get away with this crap now. I thought that I could trust him.
>

>
Nope, YOU don't seem to know jack shit about it since you don't understand that by that definition, the ONLY possible emulation of the call HHH is to show, and ONLY SHOW, after the call HHH would be the instructions of HHH.
>

 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, that isn't the definition of a correct imulation per the x86 language.
You just don't understand the meaning of the words.

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

Nope, that has been your LIE for the last 3 years,