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

On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
When HHH <is> an x86 emulator
(are you too stupid to remember this?) Then
The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
emulate itself emulating DDD.
>

>
But it *ISN'T* one if it stops its emulation before it reaches the final end.
>

Sure it is you are just a liar.
>

>
You got a source to back up your claim,

 Full source-code backs up my claim you schmuck.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
 

Which just prove that you are nothing but a LIAR.
You agree, that "Truth" comes from steps from those basic truths that build the system, the Axioms of the system.
Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.
Thus, it can't be the SOURCE of your assertions.
You don't even understand what you source code says, as has been pointed out before, the semantics of x86 code REQUIRE that a full execution or emulation be done, as the semantics are not based on just partial operation, but the COMPLETE operation of the program.
THAT IS DEFINITION.
THus, you "Source Code" (when run) shows that HHH does not do that required complete operation and with the slight modification to main to call DDD, or HHH1(DDD) we see that the complete execution/emulation of the program given to HHH halts.
Thus, you are proved a LIAR, and you have established THAT as your "Legacy", that the Peter Olcott, who thinks he might be "God" is just a pathetic LIAR that doesn't know POOP  about what he talks about, becuase he was afraid to learn the truth because he brainwashed himself to believe that some correct knowledge would brainwashing him into disbeleiving his own lies.
Sorry, that is just the truth, but seems beyond your ability to comprend, and I am sure you will just continue to prove it by continuing your baseless ranting.
You are unable to connect your ideas, as required for show them to be true, to the base facts of the system, because you just don't know the systems.
And, you are unable to create your own systems, as you just don't have the understanding to do the work needed to do that.
Your trivialize the great works of very intelligent men, because you mind just can't take that it might not understand something, which is what make you into the pathological liar you are.