XPost: comp.theory
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 11/19/2025 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/19/2025 12:20 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> On 19/11/2025 01:41, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>> (according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>>> language) reaches its own simulated "return"
>>>>> statement final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> Without the implementation of HHH beng specified, we cannot tell; it
>>>> could be the case that HHH(DD) does not return.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes because no software engineer could possibly
>>> have any idea what simulated means.
>>
>>
>> software engineers don't normally work with "simulated", they work with
>> "emulated" and "virtual". The latter refers to a generalisation of
>> "emulated" which includes machines that haven't actually existed.
>>
>> "simulated" can include a wide variety of analyses that characterise a
>> system by relations between its starting states and ending states to
>> include statistical ones.
>>
>> The use of simulate to mean emulate in discussion of the Halting Problem
>> seems to me to be obsolete now, if it /ever/ meant to strictly emulate.
>
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> In the above case simulate does perfectly mean emulate
> because HHH is anchored in a world class x86 emulator.
>
> The problem with x86 emulation is essentially no one
> has even a slight clue about the simple semantics of
> the x86 language. Because of this I switched to simulate
> as in a C interpreter emulates code written in C.
How does it emulate say CMPXCHG8B? Or LOCK CMPXCHG16B? Does it know that
XCHG has an implied LOCK for legacy reasons?
[...]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
