Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- TYPO

On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics without the
code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the input.
>

You are not that stupid You are not that ignorant and this is not
your ADD
At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>

Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of DDD again?
>

When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this emulated HHH
is going to freaking emulate DDD.
Did you think it was going to play poker?
>

Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. It might
figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, at which point it
knows that the decider might choose to abort its conditional emulation
to return, so it needs to emulate further.
Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that if I don't
abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I need to abort.
 

Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to KNOW ITS OWN CODE.

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction whether or not any
HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.

I read, reread again and again to make sure that my understanding is
correct. You seems to glance at a few words before spouting off a canned
rebuttal that does not even apply to my words.