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

Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:49:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/12/2024 8:23 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:58:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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 whether
HHH aborts its emulation or not.

No. When the HHH that simulates DDD aborts, it also means that the HHH
that DDD calls aborts,

In no case does DDD emulated by any HHH that aborts at some point or not
does the emulated DDD ever reach its "return" instruction.

Guessing „No HHH that may or may not abort simulating a DDD that calls
that (aborting or not) HHH can simulate DDD halting.”
That is wrong. When you abort simulating, you can’t tell if it maybe
would have halted later on. You can’t say that something didn’t halt
just because you didn’t simulate further than some fixed number of
steps.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.