Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic Property of Finite String

On 3/13/25 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 3:48 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

>
NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS

>
The direct execution of DDD

>
is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language.

>
Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
behaviour.
>
>

DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC PROPERTY OF
THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.

And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>

>
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
reach its own final state no matter what HHH
does.
>
Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
own final state.
>
If someone was not a liar they would say that
these are different computations.
>

>
Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't

 *Changing my quoted words is dishonest*

And thus you demonstrate that YOU are the dishonest one.
The fact that you admit that you have changed fundamental core definition of terms-of-art while still claiming to be working in the system is really just an admissition that you are nothing but a lying fraud.

 On 3/13/2025 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >
 > DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
 > reach its own final state no matter what HHH
 > does.
 >
 > DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its
 > own final state.
 >
 > If someone was not a liar they would say that
 > these are different computations.
 >
 Thus showing that you are a liar.