Sujet : Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal by olcott---
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 31. Jul 2024, 03:34:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <0e6cec1e0c07ccd4677f4a5dcfa2722337119858@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/30/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
>
I have said and proved that it does many hundreds of times
and you are so stuck in rebuttal mode that you never noticed.
No you have incorrectly claimed it.
Where in the x86 documentation can you find that behavior specified.
That is just another of your uncountable lies of thing that "must be true" but you just can't find the actual evidence, because you have chosen to be just totally ignorant of that which you talk about, making you into the damned ignorant pathetic lying idiot.
…