Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/13/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote:Again: what am I disagreeing with?Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics of the x86On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:Beautiful:(b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting thatThat's a lie, too. I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing
this. Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.Through something like mathematical induction we can directly see thatNot really. It should predict whether DDD *by itself* halts, not what
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
instruction final halt state.
HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited emulation
of DDD would ever halt.
any simulator does to its encoding. It can trivially predict what
*itself* returns. By the way DDD's halting depends on HHH.
language when one is assessing whether or not an emulation of N
instructions of an input is correct or incorrect.
When the measure of the behavior of the input is based on examining NHHH cannot simulate DDD (correctly).
steps of DDD correctly emulated by HHH to correctly predict the behavior
of an unlimited emulation
and DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction final halt state then the input to HHH(DDD) specifies not
halting behavior.
And its description specifies its behaviour.Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string specifies DDDDDD halts.
never halts.
Please respond.DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine code bytes.It also requires HHH to make up its mind whether it will abort or not.
This requires each HHH to always be at machine address 000015d2.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.