Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1

Am Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:36:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/4/2025 9:10 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:

DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183] push
ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov
ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ;
DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ;
HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
>
*THE MATCHING IS NOW USED UP*

 
False.  HHH1 is still simulating the left side by simulating HHH as
shown above.
 

The is not the way that side-by-side comparisons of DDD simulated by
HHH1 versus DDD simulated by HHH are made.

Yes it is. Nothing is "used up". Both simulations continue, with the
same instructions:

There is a list of DDD instructions that are directly simulated by HHH1
and directly simulated by HHH right here:
 
DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183] push
ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov ebp,esp          
[00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push
00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call
000015c3 ; HHH

See?

HHH1 never directly emulates any other DDD.

Other than what? Either it does or or HHH doesn't either.

Another instance of HHH does directly emulate DDD.
No instance of HHH1 ever does this.

Duh, there is only one instance of HHH1. But both it and the outermost
HHH simulate HHH ("directly") simulating DDD.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.