Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:02:27 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v8ffej$22rdc$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> <v8bc6j$159av$1@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 10:02:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf6c3700573d19c81f9562406f33b929";
	logging-data="2190764"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RRcy76LbdQ+YZY16Smaq8"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:73tanh7jXt+Ohj2wW4dXa2Cwsdg=

On 2024-07-30 18:42:27 +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.
> 
> The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
>      stop running unless aborted...
> 
> is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
> *DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*

Whether the determination is correct is not proven. Anyway, at that point
the emulation is not complete so by x86 langage rules the execution must
be continued. Termination at that point is a violation of 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.

-- 
Mikko