Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal by olcott---
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:34:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0e6cec1e0c07ccd4677f4a5dcfa2722337119858@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c46m$19905$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:34:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="931476"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8c46m$19905$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3811
Lines: 55

On 7/30/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/30/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it is
>>>> incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics. 
>>>
>>> The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted...
>>>
>>> is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
>>> *DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*
>>
>> Which frst means it must emulate per the x86 semantics, which means 
>> the call to HHH must be followed by the emulation of the x86 
>> instructions of HHH, not something else.
>>
> 
> I have said and proved that it does many hundreds of times
> and you are so stuck in rebuttal mode that you never noticed.
> 

No you have incorrectly claimed it.

Where in the x86 documentation can you find that behavior specified.


That is just another of your uncountable lies of thing that "must be 
true" but you just can't find the actual evidence, because you have 
chosen to be just totally ignorant of that which you talk about, making 
you into the damned ignorant pathetic lying idiot.