XPost: comp.theory
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 11/19/2025 12:40 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 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?
>
> [...]
Ahh shit! forgot to remove comp.lang.c. Sorry Keith!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
