Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/28/2025 2:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:28:58 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 2:45 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:13:13 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 06:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/26/25 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

You already know that you are stupidly wrong about the
emulation being incorrect or you would have provided the
correct emulation sequence long ago.

>

What are the first 15 lines of DD correctly emulated by HHH?

The error in the simulation occurs already at the 5th
instruction,
the 'call 000015c3'. Instead of simulating this instruction,

You dodged the actual question.
What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.

And you are missing the point that HHH can not correctly emulate
15 line of this DD, as it is missing information and thus the
task is improperly defined.

If we assume that HHH emulates the above machine code then there
is NO MORE relevant information needed and we know that machine
address 0000213c of DD is followed by machine address 00002133 of
DD.

No. Relevant information includes the code at address 0x213c and
everything it points to.

THE ONLY FREAKING THING THAT NEED BE KNOWN ABOUT THE CODE AT THAT
ADDRESS (TO DETERMINE THE SEQUENCE OF MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS OF DD) IS
THAT IT EMULATES THE MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS OF DD.

Well, it doesn't *call* D.

  From this base assumption we know that the first
five instructions of DD are repeated three times when the first 15
instructions of DD are emulated.

No, there is no loop. The repetition only happens in the simulation.
There are only a single instance of HHH and DD actually running,

Wrong, only HHH is actually running.

HHH maps its input finite string to the behavior that THIS INPUT FINITE
STRING SPECIFIES.

That you think it should map this finite string to behavior THAT IT DOES
NOT SPECIFY has now become very stupid on your part.