• Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal by olcott---

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 30 21:34:22 2024
    On 7/30/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/30/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it is
    incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics.

    The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
        until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
         stop running unless aborted...

    is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
    *DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*

    Which frst means it must emulate per the x86 semantics, which means
    the call to HHH must be followed by the emulation of the x86
    instructions of HHH, not something else.


    I have said and proved that it does many hundreds of times
    and you are so stuck in rebuttal mode that you never noticed.


    No you have incorrectly claimed it.

    Where in the x86 documentation can you find that behavior specified.


    That is just another of your uncountable lies of thing that "must be
    true" but you just can't find the actual evidence, because you have
    chosen to be just totally ignorant of that which you talk about, making
    you into the damned ignorant pathetic lying idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)