Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 4/22/2025 7:40 AM, joes wrote:Yes, the programmer made HHH such that it cannot see the behaviour. This failure of HHH does not say anything about the behaviour specified by the input. According to the semantics of the x86 language, this input specifies a halting program, as proven by direct execution and world-class simulators. That HHH is unable to reach the end of this halting program, does not change the semantics of the x86 language.Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:50:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:HHH cannot possibly see what HHH1.On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote:It sure ought to see the same thing the directly executing processor does.Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES THUS FORBIDDING IT FROMOn 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote:To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no bearing onAm Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 4/3/2025 1:32 AM, Mikko wrote:Yes.On 2025-04-03 02:08:22 +0000, olcott said:THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT TO AWhich does not agree or disagree with my comment nor say anythingIt is a truism that a correct x86 emulator would emulate
itself emulating DDD whenever DDD calls this emulator with
itself.
about it,
and it doesn't clarify any aspect of your statement that i
commented.
If there is any indirect connection to anything relevant that
connection is not presented, leaving your response unconnected and
therefore irrelevant.
So you did not reply to the immediated context.
CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER?
its direct execution.
REPORTING ON THE DIRECT EXECUTION.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.