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 2
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:04:07 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vrmjh7$6q8u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me> <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me> <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org> <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me> <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me> <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org> <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me> <vrm1cd$3mm77$1@dont-email.me> <vrmcp7$11pu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 16:04:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73265710d7ab43a56ef5db5792fd337f";
	logging-data="223518"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Ibyl305KQaR4l1bRdVoIQ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KivQ1EeIs9D/+EzaiVmfXuWujro=
Bytes: 2495

On 2025-03-22 13:08:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/22/2025 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-22 00:02:24 +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]
>>> 
>>> For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 that emulates
>>> a finite number of steps of DDD according to the
>>> semantics of the x86 programming language no DDD
>>> ever reaches its own "ret" instruction halt state.
>> 
>> When you mark your earlier post as erronous with the number 2 (or any
>> other way) on the subject line you should tell in the message which
>> error you found in your ealier posting and how the new posting is
>> better.
> 
> There was no error The words were not clear enough for Richard.

That the words were not clear enough can be regarded as an error.

What makes you think that the words above are clearer?

-- 
Mikko