Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:That is counter-factual.On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:And if you were not intentionally persisting in a lie, you would admit that your HHH doesn't do that, as it stops before it finishes.On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:>On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>
>
_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]
>Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, it isn't showing non-halting.>
>
DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state
in an unbounded number of steps.
But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will,
If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you
would acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
cannot possibly correctly reach its final halt state.
>Which, by the definition, is the behavior of the directly executed DDD,
The behavior that DDD specifies to HHH <is> the behavior
that it must report on.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.