Sujet : Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Jul 2024, 17:08:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <6dc1845ddaf0e8145d02ff73dfbe3507fe389d58@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
>
Correctly is measured by the semantics of the x86 language.
This specifies that when DDD is correctly simulated by HHH calls
emulated HHH(DDD) that this call cannot return.
Yes. This shows that the simulation is incorrect.
Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, no matter how
much you want it to be correct,
Where correct is understood to be what-ever-the-Hell that the machine
code of DDD specifies within the semantics of the x86 language then:
When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH
that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then it is
correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return.
An aborted simulation is not correct.
Correct is certainly not screwball misconceptions that contradict the
above.
-- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:Objectively I am a genius.
…