Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating
 termination analyzers are supposed to work
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:01:13 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <121ed51b0b0edea83c2c5abb50e7eca9fe1a6066@i2pn2.org>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me> <vgsjie$u0to$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgt2iu$10iv5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:01:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1976443"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgt2iu$10iv5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2299
Lines: 29

On 11/11/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-10 19:28:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> Correct simulation is defined as D is emulated by H according to
>>> the semantics of the x86 language thus includes H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>
>> No, that definition does not apply to Sipser's words. There a "correct
>> simulation" measn a simulation that Sipser regards as correct, which
>> probably is the same as what "coreect simulation" means in Common
>> Language.
>>
> 
> How could disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
> possibly be correct?
> 

The semantics of the x86 language are correct. You are just to stupid to 
undetstand what those are,