Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it isn't given it, so it can't emulate what it doesn't have it.On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics ofOn 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:>On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:>Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:>>You said:We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That is WRONG !!!
HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.
>
Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you
try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>
>>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>
That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>
But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.
I did not mention anything about answers my entire
scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
emulating DDD.
>
Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
seems dishonest to me.
>
But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer",
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.