Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:45:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 16:45:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c4ee90cee71e7f0114aee78a4820d739"; logging-data="3588027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18frW1XxMEotDw5HPeC2IUE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QOQiR/pK5QBZab17upjC/05OP6U= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2403 On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott wrote: >> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions >>> where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of >>> instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the >>> point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify >>> countinuation. > > >> In other words you believe that instead of recognizing a >> non-halting behavior pattern, then aborting the simulation >> and rejecting the input as non-halting the termination >> analyzer should just get stuck in recursive simulation? > > You're doing it again. "In other words" is here a lie; you've just > replaced Mikko's words with something very different. > He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating input is incorrect unless it is simulated forever. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer