Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:54:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ebe34b91a9a99302b79ea0ef8c5d395ebb0cc2f0@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$3@dont-email.me>
	<9e1b767d1ab11da5dc6f6fa164cae8d8deeada2b@i2pn2.org>
	<vr02sg$ad6n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:54:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="131589"; 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: 3077
Lines: 33

Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:05:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.

Right?

>>>>> 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.
> Someone that is not a liar could explain exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
> according to the semantics of the C language must have the same behavior
> as DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the C language.
I mean, HHH and HHH1 are both simulators, the former just aborts.

> Someone that is a liar will perpetually dodge this challenge.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.