Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal

On 2024-08-01 12:08:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/1/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-30 18:42:27 +0000, olcott said:
 

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*

 Whether the determination is correct is not proven.

 That you lack sufficient technical competence to
understand that something has been proved is much
less than no actual rebuttal at all.

Not much competence is needed to see that noting is proved as long
as no proof is shown.
--
Mikko