1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Peter Olcott seems to consistently lie about this ---

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Aug 2 10:42:03 2024
    On 8/1/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/1/24 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers* >>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

         H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
    </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
    But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which
    means of the exact input without aborting.


    DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
    language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
    emulates itself emulating DDD

    Nope.

    Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH

    And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but
    are traces OF HHH doing its decision.


    The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
    fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
    next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
    proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
    *EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*

    Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
    have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.


    Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.


    I was the #1 student out of 45 students of my operating
    system internals class beating out three instructors of
    other classes. I still have this same degree of skill.
    x86utm <is> a multi-tasking operating system.


    Then why are you so dumb now?

    Where do you get the correct emulation of the x86 call instruction
    doesn't go into the function called.

    Removing ignorance means you have no ground to claim your false
    statements are nothing but DELIBERATE LIES, bssed on a pathologically
    reckless disregard for the truth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sat Aug 3 11:12:21 2024
    On 2024-08-02 14:42:03 +0000, Richard Damon said:

    On 8/1/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/1/24 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers* >>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

         H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
    </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
    But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means >>>>> of the exact input without aborting.


    DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
    language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
    emulates itself emulating DDD

    Nope.

    Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH >>>>>
    And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but >>>>> are traces OF HHH doing its decision.


    The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
    fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
    next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
    proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
    *EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*

    Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
    have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.


    Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.


    I was the #1 student out of 45 students of my operating
    system internals class beating out three instructors of
    other classes. I still have this same degree of skill.
    x86utm <is> a multi-tasking operating system.

    Then why are you so dumb now?

    Perhaps because our current topic is very far from internals of
    operating systems. As Socreates already noted, many people who
    have aquired a good knowledge of something (typically their
    profession) believe they have good knoledge of everything else,
    too, but usually haven't.

    --
    Mikko

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