Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic Property of Finite String

Op 14.mrt.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott:

On 3/14/2025 5:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:05:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/13/25 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

>
NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS

The direct execution of DDD

is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language.

Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
behaviour.

>
Right?
>

DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC
PROPERTY OF THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.

And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.

DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own final
state no matter what HHH does.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its own final state.

Which shows that HHH doesn't correctly emulate its input, unless you
just lied and gave the two programs different inputs.

Someone that is not a liar could explain exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C language must have the same behavior
as DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of the C language.

>

I mean, HHH and HHH1 are both simulators, the former just aborts.
>

>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
to continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
to simulate to DDD exactly once.

 Factual incorrect, because HHH1 also simulates HHH simulating DDD, so it simulates DDD at least twice in recursive simulation. There is a finite recursion. HHH misses the fact that there is a finite recursion, because it aborts before it can see that.