Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 03. Aug 2024, 22:56:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8m93b$3l8jv$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/3/2024 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 3:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:
Every DDD correctly emulated by any HHH for a finite or
infinite number of steps never reaches its own "return"
halt state.
>
>
Nope. And you statment is just a incoherent statement, as no partial simulaitoni for a finite number of steps is "correct".
>
>
In other words you are trying to get away with saying that
when N instructions are correctly emulated by HHH that none
of these correctly emulated instructions were correctly emulated.
>
No, I am saying that the result is NOT the final result that the x86 semantics says will happen, because the x86 semantics says it does not stop therme
>
>
The x86 semantics says that DDD correctly emulated by HHH
never reaches its own halt state of "return" in any finite
or infinite number of steps.
>
>
>
But only if HHH DOES correct emulation that never aborts.
>
>
The x86 semantics says that
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
...
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
never reaches its own halt state of
"return" in any finite
or infinite number of steps.
>
Yes, but only for an HHH that corectly emulates its input, which means it never aborts, and only for the DDD that calls THAT HHH.
>
*No you damned liar it does not mean that*
 Why not? That *IS* the definition of correct emulation as defined by the concept of a UTM, which is the only definition of emulation that lets you get the actual full behavior of the program given.
 
It means that when 0 to infinity steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by its corresponding HHH not a
single DDD ever reaches its own halt state of "return".
 Where do you get that from?
 is it another lie that you took out of your ass?
 Partial emulation is not correct emulation for the purposes of determining full behavior of a program.
 
When every possible finite or infinite emulation of DDD
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
never reaches the final state of DDD then each HHH can
correctly take a wild guess that DDD never halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 Aug 24 * Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?395olcott
2 Aug 24 +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?11Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?10olcott
3 Aug 24 i `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?9Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?8olcott
3 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?7Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?6olcott
3 Aug 24 i     `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?5Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i      `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?4olcott
3 Aug 24 i       `* Re: Olcott is too stupid to know that only the DDD correctly simulated by onlly the HHH that doesn't abort cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?3Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i        `* Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?2olcott
3 Aug 24 i         `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?287Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?286olcott
3 Aug 24 i +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?284Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?283olcott
3 Aug 24 i i +- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i i `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?281Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?280olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?278Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i`* Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?277olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?276Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?275olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?29Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?28olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?27Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?26olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?25Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?24olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?23Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?22olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i       `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD21Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i        `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD20olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i         `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD19Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i          `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD18olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i           `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD17Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i            `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD16olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i             `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD15Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i              `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD14olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i               `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD13Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD12olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                 `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD11Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD10olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD3Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD2olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   i `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD1Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD6Mikko
5 Aug 24 i i   i   i                    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD5olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i   i                     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD4Mikko
7 Aug 24 i i   i   i                      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i   i                       +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i   i                       `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Mikko
4 Aug 24 i i   i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?245Fred. Zwarts
4 Aug 24 i i   i    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?244olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?243Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?242olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i       +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i i   i       +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?236Mikko
5 Aug 24 i i   i       i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?235olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?25Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?24olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?23Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?22olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4wij
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1wij
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?16Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?14olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i+* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?5Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?2olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii   `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?8Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?7olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?5Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  i+* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  ii`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?2Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  ii `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  i`- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?209Mikko
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i  `* HHH computes the mapping from its input finite sting to the actual behavior specified by this finite string208olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it206joes
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i   i+* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it204olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii`* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it203Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state202olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii  `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state201Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- HHH never reaches its halt state so never decides, or it decides wrong.1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state186olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it1Mikko
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   `- Re: HHH computes the mapping from its input finite sting to the actual behavior specified by this finite string (Which is the results of running the input)1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i i   i       `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24 i i   `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?96Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal