Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:02:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in
the correct order.

That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less than a
few days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
instructions"
simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems that
the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
criterion.

Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly improve my
words on the basis of reviews.

IME terrible thinkers are also terrible writers.

Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever stops running
without having its simulation aborted by HH.

It doesn't even matter. D halts or doesn't regardless of whether it is
simulated. Even more important: the same goes for H.

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the directly
executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above definition of
correct simulation.

Are you saying a simulator can simulate whatever it wants?

--
joes