Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth

On 2024-08-18 13:03:41 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/18/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 18:39:47 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/17/2024 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:>>>>

Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.

 But x86utm isn't HHH.
  x86utm doesn't take "DDD" as its input, but the COFF file that contains the whole problem.
 

 Thus DDD has direct access to HHH in this shared memory space.

 Which does meet the requirements of "emulation". In order to be
a valid emulation the memory space of the emulated system must
be simulated to the extend the emulated program acesses it.
 

 *No: infinite loops need not be infinitely emulated*

Maybe, maybe not. If the requirement is "Emulate this" then they need.
If the emulation is discontinued before completion then it is an error
to call it "emulation" without the qualifier "partial" but OK to call
it "partial emulation".

A process similar to mathematical induction correctly
predicts when an unlimited emulation of an input
cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.

Mathematical induction is not a process. It is a postulate that
applies in certain mathematical systems, e.g. natural numbers.
--
Mikko