Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- strawman deception based rebuttal

On 2024-07-27 15:30:07 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/27/2024 9:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

 That is closer to his actual words, yes.  In particular, Mikko was
talking about a simulator, not a termination analyser.  He pointed out
that aborting a simulation run was incorrect according to the criteria
you stipulated earlier.
 

 In other words when addressing the validity of a termination
analyzer based on an x86 emulator this was a strawman deception
based rebuttal.

The above is incorrect, too. A question is not a strawman deception,
as should be obvious from the meaning of the words.
--
Mikko