Sujet : Re: Recursive simulation (was: Hypothetical possibilities)
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 21. Jul 2024, 16:37:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <ecdcfa1c7eb6c6bf7d4609e5744874e1d880d989@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:25:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/21/2024 5:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 20.jul.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:
It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
Which proves that these simulations are incorrect.
*You don't get to be the judge of this*
As long as the x86 machine language instructions of DDD are emulated by
HHH according to the semantic meaning of these instructions then the
emulation is correct and anyone that disagrees is disagreeing with a
tautology.
They are not simulated correctly, they are aborted.
This correct emulation must take into account the fact that DDD is
calling its own emulator: HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation.
Only in so far that it also simulates all recursive calls.
Why is the return of HHH not simulated?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…