Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8ns92$1n09$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!3.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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:30:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 49 Message-ID: <v8ns92$1n09$2@dont-email.me> References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me> <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8ld7u$3fcgg$1@dont-email.me> <v8lebl$3ftpo$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgb8$3gadt$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgnt$3ge64$1@dont-email.me> <v8n62m$3tv07$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 14:30:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="903796c801119a1f2fd86200a8e93bf1"; logging-data="56329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198oQZarecso793YBvn9Ejy" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:w6FH5u3UcNKVdYaNGvEoJd0bJig= In-Reply-To: <v8n62m$3tv07$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2634 On 8/4/2024 1:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:01 schreef olcott: >> On 8/3/2024 9:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>>> >>> Talking nonsense does not hide you problem. I don't disagree with >>> that semantics. >>> It is HHH that deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by >>> skipping the last few instructions of a halting program, changing its >>> behaviour in this way. >> >> There are no last few instructions of any halting program >> that DDD correctly emulated by HHH skips. > > Why substituting facts by dreams? > DDD halts when HHH halts. HHH skips tte last cycle of the simulated > HHH,after which it would return to DDD, which would then return too. > >> >> Within the semantics of C and the semantics of the x86 >> language (thus specifying a correct simulation) the call >> to HHH(DDD) from the simulated DDD cannot possibly return. >> > > Indeed, that is why it is incorrect. Would the call from DDDD to ExecuteInput(DDDD) return? // This is ordinary C and I compiled and ran it. typedef void (*ptr)(); void ExecuteInput(ptr x) { x(); } void DDDD() { ExecuteInput(DDDD); return; } int main() { ExecuteInput(DDDD); } -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer