On 2024-07-27 15:30:07 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/27/2024 9:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating input
is incorrect unless it is simulated forever.
That is closer to his actual words, yes. In particular, Mikko was
talking about a simulator, not a termination analyser. He pointed out
that aborting a simulation run was incorrect according to the criteria
you stipulated earlier.
In other words when addressing the validity of a termination
analyzer based on an x86 emulator this was a strawman deception
based rebuttal.
The above is incorrect, too. A question is not a strawman deception,
as should be obvious from the meaning of the words.
--
Mikko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)