Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:57:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c20a4e68a6b3a42ca546c974dd0047ee6628e275@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me> <v6nts5$2be3m$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6op4h$2fuva$4@dont-email.me> <v6qo1d$2ugov$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6rajl$30qtt$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 22:57:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3138994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2844
Lines: 37

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:20:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/12/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-11 14:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 7/11/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-10 17:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:

>>>> However, each of those instances has the same sequence of
>>>> instructions that the x86 language specifies the same operational
>>>> meaning.
>>> *That is counter-factual*
>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics of
>>> the x86 programming language HHH must abort its emulation of DDD or
>>> both HHH and DDD never halt.
The assembly is not concerned with aborting or halting.

>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of
>>> the x86 programming language HHH1 need not abort its emulation of DDD
>>> because HHH has already done this.
>> However, the program DDD is the same in both cases and therefore the
>> its behavioral meaning per x86 semantics is also the same.
> HHH1(DDD) only halts because HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation thus proving
> the the behaviors are different.
The simple fact remains that if the behaviour of a program depends
on what is simulating it, that simulator is faulty.

>>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1 is identical to the behavior of
>>> the directly executed DDD().
>> Which is the behaviour of DDD accordint to the semantics of x86
>> language.
> If you stupidly ignore that DDD does call HHH in recursive emulation it
> might superfically seem that way.
It does that in every (non-)simulation, no change there.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.