Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:59:34 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vrj696$14eej$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me> <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:59:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cae169de1f4b106dcdbefb0dc8de4776";
	logging-data="1194451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HjutxXc3/wRoa7T/nqMOK"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yJYKvQSASwVyJ8EZtGhR2O23CVg=
Bytes: 2827

On 2025-03-20 22:43:34 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>> 
>>> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
>>> to the semantics of the x86 language then these
>>> N steps are emulated correctly.
>> 
>> That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
>> it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>> 
>> Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
>> correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
> 
> N in this context always means any element of the
> set of natural numbers.

No, it does not. It means a number that makes sense in the context and
will be specified when the definition shall be applied.

> 1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
> by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
> terminates normally.

But your HHH does not simulate correctly more steps of DDD than your
HHH1 does.

>> The term should be or include "partial emulation" when the intent is
>> that an emulation that could be continued is not is called "correct".
> 
> A finite number of N steps means a finite emulation.

Irrelevant as that phrase was not used.

And all of the above is irrelevant to the fact "correct emulation" was
not defined, contrary to the promise on the subject line.

-- 
Mikko