• Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- INCorrect emulation has been proven

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Aug 1 19:33:28 2024
    On 8/1/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 8:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:34 schreef olcott:
    On 8/1/2024 6:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:28 schreef olcott:
    On 8/1/2024 2:20 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:23:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
    On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:

    We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of of >>>>>>>>>>> just DDD
    assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator.
    This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an
    unconditional
    simulator that does not abort.
    This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination
    analyzers:

    So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an
    incorrect
    simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 language by
    skipping
    the last few instructions of a halting program.

    int DD()
    {
        int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
        if (Halt_Status)
          HERE: goto HERE;
        return Halt_Status;
    }
    int main()
    {
        HHH(DD);
    }
    DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own second >>>>>>> line.
    If HHH can't simulate itself, it is not a decider.


    So we are back to your lack of software engineering skill.

    Don't talk about software skill, when you do not even understand the
    software written by yourself.

    You cannot see that the second instruction of DD correctly*
    emulated by HHH cannot possibly be reached by DD. This
    remains true no matter how many levels that HHH emulates
    itself emulating DD.

    Which only shows that the simulation of HHH by itself is incorrect.

    No this only shows that you are a liar.

    Irrelevant nonsense (probably written because olcott wants to distract
    from the truth) ignored.


    You are probably an atheist thus don't believe
    that lying matters. Richard is not an atheist
    yet still seems to think that lying doesn't matter.


    No, Lying matters, which is why I try to get you to see that you have
    been lying,

    The fact that you can't see it make me think that unfortunately, it may
    be too late for you.

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