| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8fes7$22of5$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:52:39 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 48 Message-ID: <v8fes7$22of5$1@dont-email.me> References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v8102f$2vo8u$1@dont-email.me> <v83fhe$3gihn$1@dont-email.me> <v83hmk$3gvj7$1@dont-email.me> <v83jc9$3gihm$1@dont-email.me> <v83juc$3ham9$1@dont-email.me> <v8519e$3s7bv$1@dont-email.me> <v88h9e$i7kl$7@dont-email.me> <v8a31r$u7n5$1@dont-email.me> <v8btl5$184u7$3@dont-email.me> <v8cval$1hf7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8dshi$1mg72$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:52:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf6c3700573d19c81f9562406f33b929"; logging-data="2187749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qyn7bPTBm7/OAHvFL1qGz" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Epai4N7N8mc8oDTyqLfDQ/Ajjck= Bytes: 3199 On 2024-07-31 17:33:38 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/31/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-30 23:40:21 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/30/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-07-29 16:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 7/28/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-07-27 20:05:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> If you had sufficient understanding of the x86 language >>>>>>> you would know that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you had suffient understanding of x86 language and correctness >>>>>> you would know that DDD is incorrectly emnulated by HHH. >>>>> >>>>> This is only seems that way because every reviewer makes sure >>>>> to ignore one aspect of the basis of another. >>>> >>>> It is perfectly OK to ignore irrelevant details. A relevant detail >>>> is the meaning of the word "emulate" as that determines what is a >>>> correct emulation and what is not. >>> >>> *It is not OK to ignore* >>> >>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers: >>> <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> >>> >>> for DDD correctly emulated by HHH until... >> >> It is as Sipser does not say whether DDD is correctly simulated by HHH >> or what would constitute a correct simulation. >> > > This has already been fully established elsewhere. You have never shown any proof about either "correctly". -- Mikko