Re: behavior and description --- Richard still only has pure bluster

On 2024-08-07 03:47:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/6/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to further
discussion.

 

There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion.
 

Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within and not the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.

 

The construction is not recursive if the description does not describe
the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend on the
decider, as they should all give the same answer.
 

 That is far too vague.
 DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
instruction of DDD.
 

 Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation of the

 HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.

 Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
 

 It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
properly by the correct execution trace of the second
DDD derived by the second HHH.

 Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
 

 Because your rebuttals have always been pure bluster

 No, YOUR rebuttal have been pure bluster that have avoided answering my challenges, thus effectively ADMITTING that you arte just a liar.
 

you have only used double-talk and misdirection to dodge
pointing out any mistake in the following:

 How about the trace that HHH generates shouldn't start with the code of main, since that isn't what HHH starts simulating, thus your claims about the trace generate by HHH can not be supported by something elses trace.

 That is a very ignorant thing to say.

If it were you wouldn't say so. Instead you could say what is wrong
in it. But you can't so you choose to lie.
--
Mikko