Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 02:32:40 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vvmabo$34h6g$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <87a57mek8r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgh7$28g5i$4@dont-email.me> <87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjobj$28g5i$11@dont-email.me> <87zffmbeyt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvm1ih$33907$1@dont-email.me> <vvm6ku$34h6f$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvm7tl$34mm4$2@dont-email.me> <vvm9bv$34h6f$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvma5d$34vcu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 03:32:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43b083a872fadb3f2c7703b3081889c2";
	logging-data="3294416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196WqHs1sYLSTyFE8TvQ/Io0NhI3tvWlm1n2YrI8nJxVw=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1ENUFhBsqxFJ5XoT1y7qheabuOw=
In-Reply-To: <vvma5d$34vcu$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3013

On 10/05/2025 02:29, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2025 8:15 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/05/2025 01:51, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
>>>>> the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
>>>>> of DD. This is a truism.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately 
>>>> simulating the whole of DDD's behaviour.
>>>
>>> It is stupidly wrong to require the complete
>>> emulation of a non-terminating input.
>>
>> It is touchingly naive to think you can persuade people to 
>> accept incomplete emulation as 'correct'.
>>
> 
> If one instruction is emulated correctly
> then is is dishonest to say that zero
> instructions were emulated correctly.

Which instruction do you think is emulated correctly?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within