Sujet : Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 23. Jun 2024, 02:07:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v57p0v$onl3$20@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/22/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2024 3:01 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:35:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/22/2024 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>
The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD correctly
simulated by H0 according to the definition of the semantics of the x86
programming language.
The correct measure is the behaviour of DDD itself. Any old simulator can
do it, but H0 specifically can't.
>
H0 has libx86emu embedded within it.
Several decades of development effort went into that.
But does it use it right?
After all, part of your problem is that you try to change the quesiton, and the right answer to the wrong question can be the wrong answer for the right question.
Your inability to get the required trace out makes me think you aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing.
That you and others keep referring to the behavior of non-inputs is flat
out stupid. That is not the way that actual computations actually work.
The input is just DDD.
>
The input is the machine language of DDD that calls H0(DDD)
in recursive emulation.
No, it call H0(DDD) to decide on DDD.
Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?