On 7/30/24 10:13 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.
*The call to HHH HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREAKING FOLLOWED*
*by the emulation of the x86 instructions of HHH*
Then why don't you show it then
It seems best proven by this source-code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
This level of detail was never required because we
could always see from the trace of DDD that it must
have been a call to an x86 emulator or we would
never have gotten to the first line of DDD again.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
We can see from the first page of the trace on
page 38 of the file that DDD calls HHH(DDD) and
the next line is the address of HHH.
But that call is from MAIN not DDD.
The trace on page 38 begins at address 00002197, which looking at the
listing on the previous page, shows that this is the address of main,
not DDD, which is at 00002177.
You STILL haven't got it right. This is the trace of your x86utm system
running HHH, not the trace of HHH simulating DDD.
The next call to HHH from the emulated HHH emulating
DDD calling another HHH(DDD) is more complicated.
Each emulated instruction has a bunch of emulator
instructions inbetween.
But you are just lying about what that trace is, and who created it, so
NOTHING can be believed.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity,
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)