Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic Property of Finite String

On 3/13/2025 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 3:48 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

>
NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS

>
The direct execution of DDD

>
is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language.

>
Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
behaviour.
>
>

DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC PROPERTY OF
THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.

And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>

>
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
reach its own final state no matter what HHH
does.
>
Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
own final state.
>
If someone was not a liar they would say that
these are different computations.
>

>
Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't

 *Changing my quoted words is dishonest*
 

Not when you gave your official on-the-record permission to do so:
On 3/6/2025 8:22 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/5/2025 11:06 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Last chance:
 >>
 >> Give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
 >> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator
 >> and subsequently running Y(X).
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply (or within one hour of your next
 >> post in this newsgroup) will be taken as your on-the-record admission
 >> that they mean the same thing, and that additionally you officially
 >> approve of replacing the former with the latter in any of your quotes
 >> to make it clear exactly what you're talking about.
 >>
 >
 > Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above quoted message:
 >
 > On 3/5/2025 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
 >  > instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
 >  > Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
 >  > no third choice.
 >
 > And has not responded to the quoted message above more than 8 hours
 > after he made the above post.
 >
 > He has therefore satisfied the requirements stated above for admission
 > of the given statement.  So:
 >
 > Let The Record Show:
 >
 > That Peter Olcott:
 >
 > Has admitted that the following statement (Statement 1):
 >
 > DD correctly simulated by HHH
 >
 > Is exactly equivalent to the following statement (Statement 2):
 >
 > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
 > subsequently running HHH(DD)
 >
 > And has given his official permission to anyone responding to his
 > messages to replace Statement 1 with Statement 2 in any of his quoted
 > messages for the purposes of making it clear what he is claiming