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

On Fri, 2024-11-15 at 17:43 -0600, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-14 23:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
 

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*

 
You are free to laugh if you think the truth is stupid.
 

 
This is my life's only legacy that I really want to complete
before I die.
 

If so, I recommend donate your body(brain) after death for medical researches,
and with appendix saying "this is the brain created POOH".