Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v80esq$2su8m$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as
 non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:20:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v80esq$2su8m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
 <2eecnR6fa9XiWzz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
 <9KOcnbAqLvwnID_7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v7us2g$2gvh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <xEydncDTQ97yhD77nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v7v8gn$2m27k$1@dont-email.me>
 <fad91f57ff0a31257ab8ce5e2e0a47f4bd4c7bbc@i2pn2.org>
 <v809qo$2rabc$3@dont-email.me>
 <9651ca7a4eb67c679e7058b8b6f824ac693c11cf@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:20:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98ef4f11d97010b63c53911c6d37ff8b";
	logging-data="3045654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fS9hR0tQ2jZdxeFQqHk6+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YZlmk0WeVDb8NcZ8UXBU6GD8fIM=
In-Reply-To: <9651ca7a4eb67c679e7058b8b6f824ac693c11cf@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4787

On 7/26/2024 10:13 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:54:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/26/2024 3:50 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:25:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/25/2024 10:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 26/07/2024 01:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 4:03 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/07/2024 14:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>>>>>>>> In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
>>>>>>>>>> except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
>>> I don't see how the outside use of a function can influence it.
> 
>> Then we know that HHH can see the the first four instructions of DDD
>> have no conditional code that could prevent them from endlessly
>> repeating.
> True, but HHH does have a conditional abort. It should be coded to
> recognise that, because one knows that at compile time already.
> 
>>>>> The relative addressing is to be expected as a difference, and is
>>>>> fine provided the actual target is the same. [Which it seems to
>>>>> be...]
>>>>> The whole thing with the slave instances might well be where the bug
>>>>> lies!  That would be slightly funny, as I pointed out that problem on
>>>>> some completely unrelated post, and this could be a follow-on issue
>>>>> where it has caused observable misbehavior in the code.  (Needs a bit
>>>>> more investigation...)
>>>> There never is any actual bug with the simulation.
>>> I bet my nonexistent soul that there are bugs left in libx86. Apart
>>> from that, your use of the library may be buggy.
>> That is irrelevant. We can see by the execution trace of DDD emulated by
>> HHH that this emulation does precisely match the semantics of the first
>> four x86 machine language instructions of DDD.

> But not what comes afterwards, and HHH makes the incorrect assumption
> that another instance of itself wouldn't abort.
> 

That it is beyond your technical competence to understand that
unless the first HHH aborts then none of them do is less than
no rebuttal at all.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer