Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 8/15/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:So you don't seem to understand the same thing that Joes and Fred don't understand, that Mike does understand.On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Except that it isn't a misunderstanding.On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:>On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:>Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation asThat is what I said dufuss.A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to theNope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
correct.
>how *HHH* returns*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficientNope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.DDDHHH simulates DDD enter the matrix
DDD calls HHH(DDD) Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulatesvoilasecond level
DDD calls HHH(DDD) recursion detected
HHH aborts, returns outside interference DDD haltsHHH halts>
You're misunderstanding the scenario? If your simulated HHH aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
>>then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier. You know that, right?
That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.
>
The "behavior of DDD", isn'trestricted to this one copy as HHH simulates it, but the behavior of ALL copies of DDD, if they were directly run.
You don't seem to understand what fundamentally a "Program" is.--
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.