Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means of the exact input without aborting.
>>>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD
Nope.
>
Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH
>
And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but are traces OF HHH doing its decision.
>
fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
*EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*
Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.