Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:46:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 12:27 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:39:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 9:45 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:11:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 9:01 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 1:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:51:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:

>

Terminating C functions must reach their "return" statement.

Which DDD does.

THIS IS ALSO THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITION It is stipulated that
*correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite string of x86
instructions is emulated according to the semantics of the x86
language beginning with the first bytes of this string.

You are not simulating the given program, but a version that differs
in the abort check.

HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language finite
string of DDD including emulating the finite string of itself
emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point where the
emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again.

Whereupon the simulated HHH would abort, if it weren't unnecessarily
aborted.

If the first HHH to meet its abort criteria does not act on this
criteria then none of them do.

And if the first one does, all of them do.
 

In theory this seems true when ignoring or failing to
comprehend key details.
No sense going on about this. It is just over your head.

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each
DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

It is not a correct emulation if it has a different termination
status.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer