Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/24/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*

>
You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say.
>

>
You said that D correctly simulated by H must
have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).

>
Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>
NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>

 The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
D correctly simulated by H1
 This is not the same behavior as
D correctly simulated by H
  

So, which instruction "Correctly Simulated" by H had a different result than that same instruction simulated by H1?
Failure to point it out is an admission that you are a liar.
By the semantics of the x86 instructions set, there can't be one.