It's not clear or obvious why continuous semantics should be applicable on a digital computer. This might seem like nitpicking but it's not, there is a fundamental issue that is always swept under the rug in these kinds of analysis which is about reconciling finitary arithmetic over bit strings & the analytical equations which only work w/ infinite precision over the real or complex numbers as they are usually defined (equivalence classes of cauchy sequences or dedekind cuts).

There are no dedekind cuts or cauchy sequences on digital computers so the fact that the analytical equations map to algorithms at all is very non-obvious.

Continuous formulations are used with digital computers all the time. Limited precision of floats sometimes causes numerical instability for some algorithms, but usually these are fixable with different (sometimes less efficient) implementations.

Discretizing e.g. time or space is perhaps a bigger issue, but the issues are usually well understood and mitigated by e.g. advanced numerical integration schemes, discrete-continuous formulations or just cranking up the discretization resolution.

Analytical tools for discrete formulations are usually a lot less developed and don't as easily admit closed-form solutions.

It is definitely not obvious, but I wouldn't say it is completely unclear.

For instance we know that algorithms like the leapfrog integrator not only approximate a physical system quite well but even conserve the energy, or rather a quantity that approximates the true energy.

There are plenty of theorems about the accuracy and other properties of numerical algorithms.

This is what the field of numerical analysis exists for. These details definitely have been treated, but this was done mainly early in the field's history; for example, by people like Wilkinson and Kahan...

Doesn't continuous time basically mean "this is what we expect for sufficiently small time steps"? Very similar to how one would for example take the first order Taylor dynamics and use them for "sufficiently small" perturbations from equilibrium. Is there any other magic to continuous time systems that one would not expect to be solved by sufficiently small time steps?

Real numbers mostly appear in calculus (e.g. the chain rule in gradient descent/backpropagation), but "discrete calculus" is then used as an approximation of infinitesimal calculus. It uses "finite differences" rather than derivatives, which doesn't require real numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference

I'm not sure about applications of real numbers outside of calculus, and how to replace them there.

I can't tell if this a troll attempt or not.

If your definition of "algorithm" is "list of instructions", then there is nothing surprising. It's very obvious. The "algorithm" isn't perfect, but a mapping with an error exists.

If your definition of "algorithm" is "error free equivalent of the equations", then the analytical equations do not map to "algorithms". "Algorithms" do not exist.

I mean, your objection is kind of like questioning how a construction material could hold up a building when it is inevitably bound to decay and therefore result in structural collapse. Is it actually holding the entire time or is it slowly collapsing the entire time?