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

On 2025-03-21 13:07:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/21/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 22:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 No, it does not. It means a number that makes sense in the context and
will be specified when the definition shall be applied.
 

1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
terminates normally.

 But your HHH does not simulate correctly more steps of DDD than your
HHH1 does.
 

 This HHH is the hypothetical HHH the emulates an arbitrary number
of steps of DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
It is always at machine address 000015d2. This same HHH also
has the ability to emulate itself emulating DDD.

OP does not say so. Elsewhere you have said that HHH is the program at
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c (but withoout
specifyind date or commit id). Seems that you are trying equivocation
deception.
--
Mikko