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: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:32:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v8c46m$19905$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>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 03:32:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c56e3cc0e766a5f243fbbf3db0d44a";
	logging-data="1352709"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SLy8fWRkwZ1mStPlJxBCu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1+usqt2uxVEgtfmWDMr8jm7cH7U=
In-Reply-To: <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3530

On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/30/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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*
> 
> Which frst means it must emulate per the x86 semantics, which means the 
> call to HHH must be followed by the emulation of the x86 instructions of 
> HHH, not something else.
> 

I have said and proved that it does many hundreds of times
and you are so stuck in rebuttal mode that you never noticed.

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