Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/15/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:I didn't say that you agree, I only said you did't disagree.On 2024-08-14 13:42:33 +0000, olcott said:In other words you agree with the first two of these?
On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:Nice to see that you don't disagree.On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:A complete emulation is not required to correctly
On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and unlimitedOn 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has alwaysvoid DDD()Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of DDD by HHH) will reach that return.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its*
*own "return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
been a contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation
of DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
final halt state.
emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
predict that a complete emulation would never halt.
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according toThere is no necessary. I can't agree because most of them are too
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.