Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:

When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
return.

Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.

[ .... ]

The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.

I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
should terminate because it's a decider. 

We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise
we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben.

Just who do you think you are?  If we had to constrain ourselves to your
intellectual level, progress in these threads would grind to a near
complete halt.  Remember, you're the one who's spent nearly 20 years on
something a typical undergraduate grasps in a few hours at most, and you
still don't get it.

We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as
correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that
deny verified facts.

I think Joes's point is more interesting than yours.

I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100%
complete closure on each point before moving on to the next
point.

You've been talking in endless circles on this newsgroup for many years,
and that's not (mainly) because of other people's responses to you.

You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't
terminate.  I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that.

Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until
after we have 100% closure on the prior point.

That's not an attitude likely to lead to fruitful discussions.

So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
else would argue against that, either.

I never said anything like that.

It is an implication of the point you're willing to discuss at the
moment.

It is all a matter of me not tolerating the slightest nuance of any
head games what-so-ever.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).