Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- strawman deception based rebuttal Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:12:14 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 10:12:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e2c5978fba8d101c2f8131c12c4214d"; logging-data="4056594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19i20XVlRUSVJErIzqMDZrF" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+B8wvpNqwcry9Imsi6gO+/+u2i4= Bytes: 2980 On 2024-07-27 15:30:07 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/27/2024 9:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> 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. >> >> That is closer to his actual words, yes. In particular, Mikko was >> talking about a simulator, not a termination analyser. He pointed out >> that aborting a simulation run was incorrect according to the criteria >> you stipulated earlier. >> > > In other words when addressing the validity of a termination > analyzer based on an x86 emulator this was a strawman deception > based rebuttal. The above is incorrect, too. A question is not a strawman deception, as should be obvious from the meaning of the words. -- Mikko