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

On 11/14/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
>

 That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
 

No, DDD emulated by HHH emulates HHH emulating DDD and then aborting that emulation and returning, and thus the COMPLETE emulation that it only partially did WILL reach the end state, so the correct answer is Halting.
HHH1, just doesn't make the error of aborting without having the answer, adn thus sees the correct answer. It also emulates HHH emulationg DDD and continues till it sees the emulated HHH aborting its emulation and returning to the emulated DDD and that halting.
They both see the IDENTICAL sequence of steps, the fact that HHH sees something that is like itself doesn't matter, as the question is OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE.
HHH just has an erroneous rule which was added as by your design, without it HHH would be a DIFFERENT program that never stops this emulation, and the DIFFERENT input of the DDD built on that DIFFERENT decider ends up being non-halting, but that DIFFERENT HHH never answers so is also wrong.
You have just programmed your HHH to make the INVALID deduction that it is that other version of HHH (which is isn't) and thus it makes an incorrecgt conclusion.
Both HHH and HHH1 see the exact same code, and step through the exact same objective set of steps to the point that HHH makes the SUBJECTIVE error and aborts its processing.