| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vfkb0n$3gbj$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:11:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 103 Message-ID: <vfkb0n$3gbj$1@dont-email.me> References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me> <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org> <vfcbl5$2b6h0$2@dont-email.me> <b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@i2pn2.org> <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> <vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me> <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org> <vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me> <da2d4f48cb3b9ac2e44b6f9c9ab28adb3022acb1@i2pn2.org> <vfh428$3bkkv$2@dont-email.me> <c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org> <vfh97v$3cdsr$3@dont-email.me> <92284cbd62a02a73c2bb943d965ccdacce3726fc@i2pn2.org> <vfisco$3ner2$7@dont-email.me> <vfj28m$3j3qf$7@i2pn2.org> <vfj2s1$3p235$2@dont-email.me> <5760254052c197fc75901f09883ead163fb74936@i2pn2.org> <vfj58h$3p235$5@dont-email.me> <5fc92f15d57fb6d8c38a5b739688939158771781@i2pn2.org> <vfk51p$3ukdm$2@dont-email.me> <a0aa05cc5952a9b7908ff4881c693d9ca06bb0c5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:11:20 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aecb0ee9851572be14adcf8faad49f58"; logging-data="115059"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vG6T9RWGwY894f3/rR5+d" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JdAsbuCfv8z0ZbCnJHcxQCCGIxs= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241026-4, 10/26/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <a0aa05cc5952a9b7908ff4881c693d9ca06bb0c5@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6327 On 10/26/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/26/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/26/2024 8:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/26/24 12:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/26/2024 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/26/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/26/24 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/25/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I said a PARTIAL emulation is an incorrect basis. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are just a proven liar that twists peoples words because >>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation >>>>>>>>>> of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that >>>>>>>>> the complete emulation doesn't reach an end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its >>>>>>>> own "return" instruction? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just >>>>>>>>> showing your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you >>>>>>>>> can't show anything that proves it otherwise, because you just >>>>>>>>> don't know anything about the fundamental facts of what you >>>>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not the one stupidly requiring the compete emulation >>>>>>>> of a non-terminating input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that any HHH that answers for the input built >>>>>>>>>>> on it, must have been a decider that aborts when emulating >>>>>>>>>>> that input, and thus only does a partial emulation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation >>>>>>>>>> of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that >>>>>>>>> the complete emulation doesn't reach an end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just >>>>>>>>> showing your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you >>>>>>>>> can't show anything that proves it otherwise, because you just >>>>>>>>> don't know anything about the fundamental facts of what you >>>>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its >>>>>>>> own "return" instruction? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is that your HHH doesn't do that, >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it doesn't do that. It is ridiculously stupid for >>>>>> an emulating termination analyzer to emulate a non-terminating >>>>>> input forever. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, but it needs to answer about what the unaborted emulation >>>>> would do, >>>> >>>> Exactly !!! >>>> >>> >>> And the unaborted emulation HALTS, since DDD calls the HHH that does >>> abort and return, >>> >>> You keep on trying to lie by playing a shell game and changing the >>> imput to the system, which includes the code of the HHH that DDD calls. >>> >>> Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupdity. >> >> No you are merely contradicting yourself, thus an objective >> measure of your error opposed to a subjective opinion of me. > > WHERE did I contradict myself? > > The CORRECT answer is based on the actual beahvior of the direct > exectution of the program. That is the definition. > > It is a provable fact, that the COMPLETE (and correct) emulation of the > input will give the same answer as that, so is an proper equivalent for > that definition. > To the best of my knowledge you recently admitted that DDD emulated by HHH never reaches its return instruction whether HHH aborts its emulation or not. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer