Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:43:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:_DDD()On 7/17/2024 8:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 17.jul.2024 om 15:02 schreef olcott:On 7/17/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-16 15:57:04 +0000, olcott said:Bla bla.DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of its x86It shows some of the data, not all, and in particular, not theThe trace does not show that HHH returns so there is no basis toThe trace shows the data of the executed program of HHH that does
think that HHH is a decider.
halt.
halting.
instructions never stop running unless aborted.Then HHH is not a decider.You have shown that you do not understand the semantics of the x86That is counter-factual
language.
HHH does abort and halt after N cycles,
When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:DDD only calls HHH, which, being a decider, halts.
HHH1 One step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH HHH2 Two steps of
DDD are correctly emulated by HHH HHH3 Three steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by HHH ...
HHH∞ The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops
>
DDD emulated by any pure function HHH according to the semantic meaning
of its x86 instructions never stops running unless aborted.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.