Sujet : Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 04. Jul 2024, 13:51:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v665t0$2oun1$10@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/4/2024 6:05 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:27:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>
But it does, just after H gives up its simulation.
You have even show that with a simulation.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that is either aborted at some point never returning or hits
out-of-memory error never returning
Running out of memory is only a physical constraint of no concern
to the theoretical behaviour.
None-the-less it makes it totally clear that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…