Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/21/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 01:48:22 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language then these
N steps are emulated correctly.

>
That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>
Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>

>
N in this context always means any element of the
set of natural numbers.

>
Then HHH isn't a specific program, and you are admitting that you "logic" is just based on FRAUD.
>

>
We have been over this same thing too many times.

 You are right. But you can't figure out how to avoid that.
 

I explained that in the part you ignored.
When I fully answer a question endlessly
repeating the same question after it has been
fully answered is not acceptable.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer