Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---x86 code is a liar?

On 11/11/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/11/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

>

There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It
is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking
years.

That difference is not due to DDD.

The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.

No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the
finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott
is an idiot but it does not.

The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD unequivocally
entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state WITHIN THE
SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.

The expression "The semantic property" is incorrect when it is not
clear from context which semantic property is meant. Note that a string
per se does not have semantic properties, they all come from
interpretrations.

That you pretend to not understand my clear words does not mean that my
words are not clear.

Sigh. Mikko didn’t write anything about not understanding. Also, way to
blame the receiver for bad communication.
>

The fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship with HHH cannot be
simply ignored and must be accounted for.

Same as any other kind of relationship.
>

The actual computation itself
does involve HHH emulating itself emulating DDD. To simply pretend that
this does not occur seems dishonest.

Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other HHH
that doesn’t abort.

>
DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction
final halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
HOW STUPID CAN POSSIBLY YOU BE?
WHEN I CORRECT YOU DOZENS OF TIMES YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE.

 But the emulation by HHH isn't the measure that a Decider is supposed to use,

ALL DECIDERS MUST COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM THEIR FINITE STRING
INPUTS TO THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
DDD emulated by HHH SPECIFIES THAT HHH MUST emulate itself
emulating DDD.
DDD emulated by HHH1 SPECIFIES THAT HHH1 MUST NOT emulate
itself emulating DDD.
If you say these are the same you are a (condemned to actual Hell)
damned liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer