Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/22/2025 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Really, Where did I say that LIAR!On 6/22/25 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:Richard is such a liar that he disagrees that when HHHOn 6/22/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/21/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/21/2025 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:*It is the definition of a correct emulation of N instructions*On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:>Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:It was an agreement.Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even thoughThat is counter-factual and over-your-head.
the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up
the simulation.
>
>Lol, that was the same paragraph.Yes this is factual.>No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?>
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.
Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.
>Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no matter howYes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.
>
That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition.
>
HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
at least once.
Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation",
That you believe that a correct emulation is a complete emulation
of a non terminating input is self-contradictory. Even my close
friend with a 73 IQ knows that contradiction proves falsity.
>
>
Which isn't the correct simulation of the input.
>
A correct simulation of N instructions is
A correct simulation of N instructions
in the same way that 1 == 1.
>
ChatGPT itself recognizes the repeating pattern
shown in N steps of DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
I never have been able to understand how refusing
to acknowledge this was anything other than dishonesty.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Anyone that knows what infinite recursion is should
be able to immediately see that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.
But it is *NOT* a correct simulation of ALL,
correctly simulates N instructions of DDD this does not
mean that N instructions of DDD were correctly simulated.
No one here is stupid enough to reject the law of identity:So, you think Partial == Complete?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
thus Richard must be lying.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.