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

On 3/13/2025 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 7:32 PM, dbush wrote:

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:
>

 YOU ARE A DAMNED LIAR
 

And now you're lying about having made such a statement when the evidence is right there in black and white for all to see.  And the fact that you trimmed that evidence is further proof of deception on your part.
Your dishonestly knows no bounds.
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