Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:10:37 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 10:10:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e2c5978fba8d101c2f8131c12c4214d";
	logging-data="4056221"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KP11uypxUbd1ZkGXEQssr"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b8l5k14+lwo15aOTJPvU37k6KlY=
Bytes: 2580

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. But it is incorrect to say
"off topic" on the basis of not following x86 semantics when your
"on topic" deviates from the x86 semantics as much as what I ask about
in my "off topic" question.

-- 
Mikko