Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:52:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vrv2$3ao52$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
	<v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
	<v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
	<v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:52:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3498146"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2733
Lines: 27

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:02:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
>>> machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in
>>> the correct order.
>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less than a
>> few days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>> instructions"
>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems that
>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>> criterion.
> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly improve my
> words on the basis of reviews.
IME terrible thinkers are also terrible writers.

> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever stops running
> without having its simulation aborted by HH.
It doesn't even matter. D halts or doesn't regardless of whether it is
simulated. Even more important: the same goes for H.

> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the directly
> executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above definition of
> correct simulation.
Are you saying a simulator can simulate whatever it wants?

-- 
joes