Sujet : Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
De : acm (at) *nospam* muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. Jun 2024, 15:40:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : muc.de e.V.
Message-ID : <v5h5oq$1g3$1@news.muc.de>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
olcott <
polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
The relevant area of software engineering is testing. The usual
attitude of software engineers is that a program is accpted when it
has been sufficiently tested and passed all tests. Consequently, an
important part of sofware work is the design of tests.
In the current context the program to be tested is a halting decider.
*NO IT IS NOT. H0 IS ONLY AN X86 EMULATOR*
After you quit lying about the behavior of DDD correctly
emulated by H0 then we can move on to the next point.
I think the problem is rather your calling every program or function you
talk about H, or H^, or HH, or HHH, or H0, or H1. Usually, in the past,
you have meant purported halting deciders by these names. Now you're
saying that you mean an X86 emulator. Where and when did this change
happen, and how is anybody else supposed to know what you mean by
particular uses of these names?
Or is it just some subterfuge to enable you to abuse other posters?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
-- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
…