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