Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal

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.
And since that is the exact same code as this HHH, if this HHH decides to abort and return 0 to its called, the emulated HHH, if correctly emulated to the end, will also abort its emulating and return to its called, which is DDD, and thus that correct emulation will halt, means that it is impossible for HHH to "correctly determine" that the correct x86 emulation of its input would not halt, since it does.
Your logic of looking at a CHANGED input, just shows that you don't understand the flawed logic of that operation. That is just as bad as thinking your pet cat is a 15 story office building.

 

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.
>