Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:Whether the determination is correct is not proven. Anyway, at that pointOn 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it isolcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating inputOn 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
countinuation.In other words you believe that instead of recognizing aYou're doing it again. "In other words" is here a lie; you've just
non-halting behavior pattern, then aborting the simulation
and rejecting the input as non-halting the termination
analyzer should just get stuck in recursive simulation?
replaced Mikko's words with something very different.
is incorrect unless it is simulated forever.
incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics.
until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
stop running unless aborted...
is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
*DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*
--But it is incorrect to say
"off topic" on the basis of not following x86 semantics when your
"on topic" deviates from the x86 semantics as much as what I ask about
in my "off topic" question.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.