Re: Peter Olcott here seems to consistently lie about this ---

On 8/1/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/1/24 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

>
But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means of the exact input without aborting.
>

>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD

>
Nope.
>
Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH
>
And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but are traces OF HHH doing its decision.
>

>
The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
*EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*
>
Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.
>

 Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.
 

I was the #1 student out of 45 students of my operating
system internals class beating out three instructors of
other classes. I still have this same degree of skill.
x86utm <is> a multi-tasking operating system.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer