Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:20:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <v88fh6$i7kl$3@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> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:20:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d358cc663705f17d44fb4afa23cd753";
	logging-data="597653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NgyOoG/Y0+mEJYgXAyUpV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uBsdeLOtXfPGGeB9aKj9chDJaL8=
In-Reply-To: <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3776

On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

It does not freaking deviate from the semantics for DDD
to be correctly emulated by HHH

     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
     stop running unless aborted...

     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
     stop running unless aborted...

     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
     stop running unless aborted...

<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>


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