Sujet : Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state
De : dbush.mobile (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dbush)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 12. May 2025, 16:55:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vvt5lg$15ceh$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/12/2025 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:36, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>
It is nutty to require a simulating termination
analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever.
>
I have to agree with you here. In fact, you've put your finger on the precise reason that it's nutty to try to analyse a program's termination behaviour by simulating it.
>
Unless like every competent programmer
HHH can spot the repeating pattern of DDD
correctly emulated by HHH
Which doesn't happen as you have admitted on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
>>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
>>>
>>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
>>
>> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
>> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
>> executing the next instruction.
>>
>> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
>> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
>> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
>> correctly simulate DD.
>
> Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
> newsgroup after the above message:
>
> On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
> > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
> >
> > You are taking
> > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
>
> And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
> instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
> instruction other than HLT.
>
> Therefore, as per the above criteria:
>
> LET THE RECORD SHOW
>
> That Peter Olcott
>
> Has *officially* admitted
>
> That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH
Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state
Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state