Sujet : Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 04. Aug 2024, 13:30:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8ns92$1n09$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/4/2024 1:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:01 schreef olcott:
On 8/3/2024 9:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>>>
Talking nonsense does not hide you problem. I don't disagree with that semantics.
It is HHH that deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program, changing its behaviour in this way.
>
There are no last few instructions of any halting program
that DDD correctly emulated by HHH skips.
Why substituting facts by dreams?
DDD halts when HHH halts. HHH skips tte last cycle of the simulated HHH,after which it would return to DDD, which would then return too.
>
Within the semantics of C and the semantics of the x86
language (thus specifying a correct simulation) the call
to HHH(DDD) from the simulated DDD cannot possibly return.
>
Indeed, that is why it is incorrect.
Would the call from DDDD to ExecuteInput(DDDD) return?
// This is ordinary C and I compiled and ran it.
typedef void (*ptr)();
void ExecuteInput(ptr x)
{
x();
}
void DDDD()
{
ExecuteInput(DDDD);
return;
}
int main()
{
ExecuteInput(DDDD);
}
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Re: Peter Olcott seems to consistently lie about this ---