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

On 11/13/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

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 final halt
state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.

When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns to DDD,
which then halts.
>

>
It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.

>
If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>

 The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.

And that is the DDD that calls the HHH that gives the answer.
Using any other DDD is just showing that you are just a damned liar.

 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
Is stupidly wrong to return 7 for sum(2,3).
 

Yes, just as it is wrong to return 0 for DDD, since the program DDD will halt if its HHH returns 0.
PERIOD.