Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:52:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:Everyone has claimed that it is wrong as soon as theOn 8/12/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/12/2024 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/12/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/12/2024 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:This is just too funny.When I state verified facts I am definitely not a liar even when IBut your HHH doesn't "Correctly Simulate" DDD by the sameFour expert C programmers (two with masters degrees in computerNo, to make a claim, you need to provide the actual proof.It does do this yet mixing in the 200 pages of other code makesIn other words you cannot see that the following code exactlyYour problem is that that is not the COMPLETE x86 source code
matches the x86 source-code of DDD thus proving that the
second HHH did emulate it input correctly?
>
of the PROGRAM DDD, as that needs the code for HHH included in
it.
A correct x86 emulation of DDD includes the correct emulation
of HHH.
>
it too difficult to see the execution trace of DDD.
science) agree that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt.
>
definition that makes that true.
do not make this verification available to others.
QFTAlso, "4 experts" don't make a proof, just a logical fallacy,
which just also prove you don't know what you are talking about,
but are just a pathological liar.
Have you ever clarified what the disagreement is about?But the CONDITION isn't that it won't halt until aborted, but it willWhen you insist on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
not halt EVER.
an many times as you have it is unreasonably implausible to construe
this as any sort of honest mistake.
I am absolutely shocked that Mike disagrees though.Shocked, I say!
That he will not point out any divergence of the x86 execution trace ofThe divergence is that the simulation is aborted
DDD emulated by HHH from the semantics of the x86 language is
significant indication seems quite telling that he is wrong.
, i.e. the following--
instructions are not simulated. Preemptively: of course a nonterminating
program can't be simulated in finite time.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.