Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:46:09 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org> <92284cbd62a02a73c2bb943d965ccdacce3726fc@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f00999e9e0e5447cf99e873d021c7ec9"; logging-data="3967077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ybrZhFgRN1aYkNtIqvloq" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:tNoskEz5l4t1jG9iAWEWjlJArMk= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241026-4, 10/26/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4567 On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/26/24 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/25/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>>> >>>>> No, I said a PARTIAL emulation is an incorrect basis. >>>>> >>>>> You are just a proven liar that twists peoples words because you >>>>> don't know what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation >>>> of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there. >>> >>> HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that the >>> complete emulation doesn't reach an end. >>> >> >> Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the >> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its >> own "return" instruction? >> >>> IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just showing >>> your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you can't show >>> anything that proves it otherwise, because you just don't know >>> anything about the fundamental facts of what you talk about. >>> >> >> I am not the one stupidly requiring the compete emulation >> of a non-terminating input. >> >>>> >>>>> The problem is that any HHH that answers for the input built on it, >>>>> must have been a decider that aborts when emulating that input, and >>>>> thus only does a partial emulation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation >>>> of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there. >>> >>> HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that the >>> complete emulation doesn't reach an end. >>> >>> IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just showing >>> your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you can't show >>> anything that proves it otherwise, because you just don't know >>> anything about the fundamental facts of what you talk about. >>> >> >> Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the >> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its >> own "return" instruction? >> > > The problem is that your HHH doesn't do that, Of course it doesn't do that. It is ridiculously stupid for an emulating termination analyzer to emulate a non-terminating input forever. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer