Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

On 7/12/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:49:16 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/11/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-10 14:53:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2024 9:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 9:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 14:37 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2024 om 23:18 schreef olcot

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>
DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it
past the above line of code no matter what.
>
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

>
Which proves that HHH does not interpret x86 code correctly.

>
*It interprets the code correctly*
https://github.com/wfeldt/libx86emu

>

>
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
>

>
You seem to be stuck in infinite invalid reasoning.
A simulator cannot simulate 1 to ∞ steps at the same time.

>
For the entire infinite set of every possible HHH the
semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that
no DDD every halts.

>
What is the set you call "the etire set of every possible HHH"?
>

>
An infinite set of different instances of HHH
HHH emulates 1 step of DDD
HHH emulates 2 steps of DDD
HHH emulates 3 steps of DDD...
HHH emulates ∞ steps of DDD
Every DDD of each HHH/DDD pair is either aborted or keeps running.

 In that situation you should use the symobls HHH₁, HHH₂, HHH₃, ...
so that you can use HHHᵢ when you say aothing about every one of them.
And the one more symbols for the one that runs forever.

I did not want to say it as verbosely as that, yet your suggestion
would be clearer.

And they should
not be defined to run DDD but whatever input is given.
 

I certainly can't do that. People here use every excuse
they can to change the subject and then stay on this
changed subject and never get back to the point.
It took me six full time weeks to get people to stop
changing the HHH/DDD pair that I was referring to.
Even after I switched to the infinite set of every HHH/DDD
pair they simply ignored this change for three months
and still tried to get away with referring to a different
HHH/DDD pair than an element of the infinite set.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer