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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:50:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ee5f2371ef699b2907a5a3d8dc3709889b85284f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:50:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2715037"; 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: 2594
Lines: 31

Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 11:44:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/9/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>>>>> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls an emulated
>>>>> HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
>> And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as
>> Sipser would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an
>> abort at that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such
>> HHH exists.
> HHH is fully operational in the x86utm operating system.
It does not fulfill the specification. Your HHH is not the true HHH.
It is bugged.

> When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH
> calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot possibly return. This
> prevents the emulated DDD from ever reaching past its own machine
> address of 0000216b and halting.
Are you saying that the called HHH(DDD) does not terminate?

> HHH is required to report that it must abort the emulaton of its input.
No, why?
> HHH cannot correctly report that DDD need not be aborted on the basis of
> the behavior of a directly executed DDD(DDD) after HHH has already
> aborted its emulated DDD.
Why did it abort DDD then?

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