Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v88ugk$kpv7$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:36:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <v88ugk$kpv7$2@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$1@dont-email.me> <v88fh6$i7kl$3@dont-email.me> <3c20092a2f32266aa40e8b7ed03fc460b243b063@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:36:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d358cc663705f17d44fb4afa23cd753"; logging-data="681959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/44AO06PSy6rJxXIoH6qM1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:l99GH5TzvV0eQC3JJmDMOc+KVOs= In-Reply-To: <3c20092a2f32266aa40e8b7ed03fc460b243b063@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3861 On 7/29/2024 3:20 PM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:20:53 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> 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. > That is right. > >>> 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". By which point it does deviate, by not continuing a halting > simulation and not returning that it halts. > A halt decider is itself required to halt thus every simulating halt decider must always abort the simulation of any input that would otherwise cause itself to never halt. The halt decider never deviates from a correct simulation it merely stops simulating as soon as the input has proved non terminating behavior. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer