Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 10/05/2025 02:48, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:29, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:15 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 01:51, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:

Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
of DD. This is a truism.

>
No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately simulating the whole of DDD's behaviour.

>
It is stupidly wrong to require the complete
emulation of a non-terminating input.

>
It is touchingly naive to think you can persuade people to accept incomplete emulation as 'correct'.
>

>
If one instruction is emulated correctly
then is is dishonest to say that zero
instructions were emulated correctly.

>
Which instruction do you think is emulated correctly?

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)

Assumes facts not in evidence. Your HHH function is in a translation unit that contains a syntax error.
You have made an extraordinary claim. Carl Sagan rightly said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not sufficient to handwave your way past syntax errors and attempt to browbeat your critics. If you want to convince anyone that you're right, you have to be convincing. Calling people dishonest for challenging you is not the mark of a convincing argument.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within