Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:09:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9e1b767d1ab11da5dc6f6fa164cae8d8deeada2b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:09:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="60223"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/13/25 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
>>>>
>>>> The direct execution of DDD
>>>
>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>
>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
>> behaviour.
>>
>>
>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC PROPERTY OF
>>> THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>>
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own final state no matter what HHH
> does.
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its
> own final state.

Which shows that HHH doesn't correctly emulate its input, unless you 
just lied and gave the two programs different inputs.

> 
> If someone was not a liar they would say that
> these are different computations.
> 

Well, they were because they were different inputs, one the DDD that 
called the HHH that gets stuck in infinite recursion, and the other DDD 
called the HHH that aborts and returns,

You are just showing that you don't understand the words you are using, 
and have even gone so far as to admit that fraud, and that you change 
the meaning of core terms-of-art, so nothing you say has any real 
meaning anymore.