Sujet : Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Jul 2024, 16:57:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v5ujm6$1na1q$3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard
Damon wrote:
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address
0000217a cannot possibly return.
But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO
DEFINED.
DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted.
And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL
return to DDD and it will return also.
Right.
The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
the behavior of the input.
When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
the input.
Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.
-- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:Objectively I am a genius.
…