Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:28:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
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>
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:28:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="3463"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE (amd64))
Bytes: 3143
Lines: 57

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:

>>> On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

[ .... ]

>>>> No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
>>>> language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.

>>> In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
>>> to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
>>> input x86 machine code.

>> You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
>> not saying what you falsely claim.

> I am not lying I am paraphrasing so that we can come to a mutual
> understanding.

No, you replaced what Mikko wrote with something entirely different, and
lied that it was "merely a paraphrase".  The difference between what
Mikko wrote and your replacement wasn't even subtle; it was gross.

>> 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.

> The violates the design requirement that a termination
> analyzer must halt so that it wrong.

What you suggested violates the requirement that the termination analyser
gets the correct result.

Why don't you read Mikko's points, and answer them?

[ .... ]

> -- 
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).