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

Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:07:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:
>

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.

No, your HHH is real and it does not simulate arbitrarily many
instructions.

It is always at machine address 000015d2. This same HHH also has the
ability to emulate itself emulating DDD.

No, it can't simulate itself to its definite termination.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.