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

On 11/12/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/12/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

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,

 *This is a verified fact that seems too difficult for you to understand*

No, it is verified to be a LIE.

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.”

*There is no guessing to it*

Right, it has just been proved to be a LIE by being about an improper strawman,

 

That is wrong. When you abort simulating, you can’t tell if it maybe
would have halted later on.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 Anyone with sufficient understanding of the x86 language
fully well knows that no DDD emulated by any HHH can
possibly reach past its own [0000217a] machine address.

But the partial emulation by HHH is not "according to the semantics of the x86 language", so your claim is just a lie.

 

You can’t say that something didn’t halt
just because you didn’t simulate further than some fixed number of
steps.
>

 *This must just be over your head*
 

No, everything seems to be over YOUR head.