Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:52:17 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0a5673bb5740a7c2e9633ac580e7f6b988480899@i2pn2.org> References: <6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org> <4bab17f6a6b64fce08359d2c1682df9f804c70e1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:52:18 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2132706"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4541 Lines: 58 On 7/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:03:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>> On 7/4/2024 10:06 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:41:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:46:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:15 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:45:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:39 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns even though the semantics of the x86 language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees. >>>>>>>>>> Which semantics? >>>>>>>> I repeat. >>>>>> What x86 semantics say that HHH can’t return? >>>> Hello? >> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that >>>>>>>>>>> emulates DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted. >>>>>>>>>> But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end. >>>>>>>>> As long as it is impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to >>>>>>>>> reach its own ret instruction then DDD never halts even when its >>>>>>>>> stops running because its emulation was aborted. >>>>>>>> HHH halts by definition. Why can’t DDD? >>>>>>> By definition DDD calls its simulator. >>>>>> Yes, and nothing else. So when HHH returns, so does DDD. >>>>> *Machine address 00002174 of DDD is never reached* >>>> Why not? Clearly HHH halts. Does it not return or what? >>> The semantics of the x86 language proves that DDD correctly emulated by >>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own machine address 00002183. >> What semantics am I disagreeing with? Doesn’t HHH halt? >> > > The DDD correctly emulated by HHH in its own process > context cannot possibly halt even if another entirely > different instance of DDD does halt. > Which just means that HHH can not emulate DDD to a final state. That doesn't mean that the DDD being emulated can't be a program that reaches a final state, just that HHH doesn't emulate it far enough. Partial Emulaitons do not directly provide evidence of future behavior, only the behavior of the steps that were emulated.