Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:28:43 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:28:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1478563"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2171 Lines: 12 Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:01:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/28/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 28.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/28/2024 3:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by x86 >>>>> emulator H0 cannot possibly return. > That is counter-factual. HHH(DDD) does correctly emulate the call from > DDD to HHH(DDD) emulating itself emulating DDD. Just gonna leave this side by side.