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