Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

[ .... ]

No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.

In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
input x86 machine code.

You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
not saying what you falsely claim.

I am not lying I am paraphrasing so that we can come to a mutual
understanding.

No, you replaced what Mikko wrote with something entirely different, and
lied that it was "merely a paraphrase".  The difference between what
Mikko wrote and your replacement wasn't even subtle; it was gross.

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.

The violates the design requirement that a termination
analyzer must halt so that it wrong.

What you suggested violates the requirement that the termination analyser
gets the correct result.

Why don't you read Mikko's points, and answer them?

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).