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

On 10/29/24 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/29/2024 10:43 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/29/2024 3:44 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:08:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

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.

>

Of course. For that it needs its own code. This doesn't need to be
marked specially as being itself (HHH is not conscious), it just needs
to be identical to the running code.
>

I have provided that at the TOP of page 21 since September 8,10,11
https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf

Not the point. The code of DDD only without HHH is not a complete program
and cannot be meaningfully simulated, as there is nothing to call.
>

 The code for HHH is freaking right there NITWIT !!!
HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD NITWIT !!!
 

But it not in the "input", thus your HHH fails to be deciding based on its INPUT.
Which open the door for your lie to change that code when you imagine a different HHH being given the "same input", which isn't the same, as the part that should have been there but was omitted changed.
Sorry, you are just showing how much of a LIAR you are,