Sujet : Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 14. Nov 2024, 09:56:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <a00c3fbcaded06f27f00d04318140f5b9c890476@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
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.
What, then, is 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
Yes, exactly. In particular, the one that calls the aborting HHH.
-- 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.
…