On 7/6/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that >>>>>>>> aborts and halts?
Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore
continuing to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not
feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong,
if incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
cannot possibly return.
I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return,
because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
the point where I don't care which it is.
No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its
simulation and returns.
By this same reason there is never any reason for you
to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
already made up your mind that you will do this.
Why do you say that?
You are just making bad analogies.
HHH cannot report on what it did before it does this.
HHH must report on what it must do now.
On 7/6/2024 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH >>>>>>>>>> that aborts and halts?
Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore
continuing to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not >>>>>>>> feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully
wrong, if incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return.
I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return, >>>>>>>> because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
the point where I don't care which it is.
No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its
simulation and returns.
By this same reason there is never any reason for you
to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
already made up your mind that you will do this.
Why do you say that?
You are just making bad analogies.
HHH cannot report on what it did before it does this.
HHH must report on what it must do now.
No, HHH must report on what DDD actually does when run,
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries once
you decide that you will do this.
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does this, >>>>> thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries once
you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this
otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as
soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE >>>>>>>>> FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE >>>>>>>>> FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore
So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> that aborts and halts?
Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars. >>>>>>>>>>
continuing to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do >>>>>>>>>> not feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully >>>>>>>>>> wrong, if incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from >>>>>>>>>>> DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language >>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return.
I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly
return, because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. >>>>>>>>>
I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching >>>>>>>>> the point where I don't care which it is.
No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its >>>>>>>> simulation and returns.
By this same reason there is never any reason for you
to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
already made up your mind that you will do this.
Why do you say that?
You are just making bad analogies.
HHH cannot report on what it did before it does this.
HHH must report on what it must do now.
No, HHH must report on what DDD actually does when run,
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries once
you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this
otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as
soon as you decide to go buy them.
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does this, >>>>>>> thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries once >>>>>>> you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this
otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as
soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it >>>>>>>>>>> does this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries >>>>>>>>>>> once
you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this >>>>>>>>> otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as >>>>>>>>> soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
Why do you say that,
The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the
execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
No
HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
the store to buy them.
On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does >>>>>>>>> this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy groceries once >>>>>>>>> you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this >>>>>>> otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as
soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
Why do you say that,
The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the
execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
You are insisting that HHH must report on what it will do
as if it already did this. That would make HHH a liar.
You cannot simply assume that sequence of sequence, selection
and iteration does not exist. Actions do occur as specific
points in an execution trace THEY DO NOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE.
On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it >>>>>>>>>>>>> does this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy
groceries once
you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does >>>>>>>>>>> this
otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as >>>>>>>>>>> soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
Why do you say that,
The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the
execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
No
HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
the store to buy them.
But it MUST, so you are just admitting that no such decider can exist.
I am pointing out that you cannot correctly say that you don't
need groceries until AFTER you go to the store and buy them.
Pretending that everything happens all at once does not overcome
this. Trying to get away with pretending that sequence of sequence
selection and iteration does not exist is foolish.
(a) You determine that you need groceries
(b) You report this need
(c) then you go to the store to buy them
(a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
(b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
(c) then HHH aborts DDD
On 7/6/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this,
thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groceries once
you decide that you will do this.
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it >>>>>>>>>>>>> does this
otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy groceries as >>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you decide to go buy them.
It MUST report on what it DOES.
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
effect of something that it has not yet done.
But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
Why do you say that,
The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the
execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
No
HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
the store to buy them.
But it MUST, so you are just admitting that no such decider can exist. >>>>
I am pointing out that you cannot correctly say that you don't
need groceries until AFTER you go to the store and buy them.
Right, because I am a willful being, and thus until I do, I am not
forced to do.
Pretending that everything happens all at once does not overcome
this. Trying to get away with pretending that sequence of sequence
selection and iteration does not exist is foolish.
Nope, because the program is deterministic, and thus all its future
behavior has be fixed and determined, and thus established.
(a) You determine that you need groceries
(b) You report this need
(c) then you go to the store to buy them
(a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
(b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
(c) then HHH aborts DDD
And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence.
*It seems that you are simply too much of a liar*
You can already have the groceries that you just ran out
of before thinking that you need to go to the store or
going to the store.
On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Therefore it cannot report that it will run forever when it hasn’t
On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in the execution
On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which the execution
On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:It MUST report on what it DOES.
On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior,
That requires HHH to report on what itself does before it does >>>>>>>>> this,
It cannot report on the effect of what it did before it does this >>>>>>>
Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the effect of something >>>>> that it has not yet done.
REVEALS is instantaneously created by determinism.
trace of its simulation of DDD.
You are insisting that HHH must report on what it will do as if it
already did this. That would make HHH a liar.
On 7/6/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that aborts >>>>>>>> and halts?
Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore continuing to >>>>>> talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not feel >>>>>> offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, if
incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
cannot possibly return.
I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return,
because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
the point where I don't care which it is.
No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its
simulation and returns.
By this same reason there is never any reason for you
to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
already made up your mind that you will do this.
Why do you say that?
You are just making bad analogies.
HHH cannot report on what it did before it does this.
HHH must report on what it must do now.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:43:58 |
| Calls: | 9,796 |
| Calls today: | 15 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,350 |