Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal

Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:20:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

That is right.

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". By which point it does deviate, by not continuing a halting
simulation and not returning that it halts.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.