Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8a1ug$u13f$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:41:20 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 61 Message-ID: <v8a1ug$u13f$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> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me> <v88fh6$i7kl$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:41:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="329af3d797696bf444d9a1dc8986292a"; logging-data="984175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hRef7ESK2Jmd9kkS9H1fL" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:UDbHFTVJaMkoRgvLu1cl14gIadg= Bytes: 3790 On 2024-07-29 16:20:53 +0000, olcott said: > 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> None of above denies (let aolone refutes) the fact that you lied about what I said. -- Mikko