Path: ...!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 --- strawman deception based rebuttal
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:12:14 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <v84ugu$3rpgi$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> <v8320o$3c7$3@news.muc.de> <v833q0$3e9sa$2@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 10:12:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e2c5978fba8d101c2f8131c12c4214d";
	logging-data="4056594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19i20XVlRUSVJErIzqMDZrF"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+B8wvpNqwcry9Imsi6gO+/+u2i4=
Bytes: 2980

On 2024-07-27 15:30:07 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/27/2024 9:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> That is closer to his actual words, yes.  In particular, Mikko was
>> talking about a simulator, not a termination analyser.  He pointed out
>> that aborting a simulation run was incorrect according to the criteria
>> you stipulated earlier.
>> 
> 
> In other words when addressing the validity of a termination
> analyzer based on an x86 emulator this was a strawman deception
> based rebuttal.

The above is incorrect, too. A question is not a strawman deception,
as should be obvious from the meaning of the words.

-- 
Mikko