Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

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

Simulating a halting program only halfway and then abort it, is an incorrect simulation.
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
Your knowledge of x86 seems to be failing. There is no reason to abort a halting program halfway its simulation.

 Your understanding of correctly incorrectly diverges
from the semantics of the x86 language making you wrong.
You responded to the wrong version of my post.

You seem to have an invalid understanding of x86. It never indicates that a halting program should be aborted halfway its simulation.

 

So, the set of HHH that correctly emulates is empty.

This is only your ignorance.
 

You failed to indicate why it is a good idea to abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
You seem to be stuck in infinite invalid reasoning.
Wishing it is correct very very much does not make it correct.