Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---SUCCINCT

On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>

What are weasel words?

>
Words whose precise meaning is difficult/impossible to pin down, and
deliberately so.  Politicians use these all the time.
>

>
_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]
>
DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
instruction final halt state.
>
>
>

>
But the emulation by HHH is NOT the DEFINITION of the behavior that HHH is suppoded to be reporting on.
>

>
Right and likewise ZFC is "supposed to include" sets that
are members of themselves. Thus according to your reasoning
ZFC is wrong because is directly disobeys the dogma of
naive set theory.
>

>
Where did I say that?
>
You seem to be halucinationg.
>

That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is the behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program described by the input,

>
IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY IGNORE
THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
EMULATING DDD

>
DDD doesn't "say" anything, it is a program that defines how it will run.
>

 The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
emulate itself emulating DDD.
 

There is no "emulate" instruction.
The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must do as it is programmed, and that the correct emulation of it will do EXACTLY the same thing.
So, if HHH is programmed to return after partially emulating this input, so does the emulated HHH.
Sorry, but you just don't undetstand what you are talking about.