Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker Maximalism FULL_TRACE

On 7/15/2025 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/15/25 7:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 07:42:56 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/25 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2025 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Right, but the OBJECT that measures that it the exectution of the
Program, or a complete simulation.
>

When one or more instructions of DDD are emulated according to the
semantics of the x86 language by some HHH, no DDD ever reaches its
"ret" instruction.
Do you really think that you can get away with disagreeing with the
x86 language?
>

Why do YOU think you can?
Your above "Input" can be simulated past the instruction at 0000219A
because we lack the data of what is next.
Your problem is you started with the lie to yourself that you could
change the rules, and thus made yourself into a pathological liar
that has just lost the rules of the game.
In this case, your problem is you tried to redefine what non-halting
means, becuase your mind just can't handle the actual definition, and
some of its consequences. Partial emulations, by themselves, NEVER
define a program to be non-halting, only complete execution or
complete simulation. PERIOD.

>
No. Partial simulation is a perfectly valid approach for a partial
decider.

 
Yes, but not as the thing that defines that an input is non-halting.
You need to use the partial simulation to actually prove that the full
correct simulation of that input would not halt. And that input doesn't
change to use that correct simulator, it still calls the partial
simulator as that is what is in the input.
 

Been doing that for three years and you keep dishonestly pretending that
you don't see this.