他们之间没有真正的区别，人们只是遵循创造者选择的惯例。

首先，你应该明白，编程或计算机科学一般不是数学，我们经常使用的大多数术语都没有严格的定义。

现在回答你的问题:

什么是解释器(计算机科学)

它按最小的可执行单元翻译源代码，然后执行该单元。

什么是虚拟机

对于JVM来说，虚拟机是一个包含解释器、类加载器、垃圾收集器、线程调度器、JIT编译器和许多其他东西的软件。

正如你所看到的，解释器是JVM的一部分，整个JVM不能被称为解释器，因为它包含许多其他组件。

为什么在谈论python时要用“解释器”这个词

在Java中，编译部分是显式的。 另一方面，Python的编译和解释过程不像Java那样明确，从最终用户的角度来看，解释是用于执行Python程序的唯一机制

不要忘记Python为x86提供了JIT编译器，这进一步混淆了问题。(见psyco)。

对“解释型语言”的更严格的解释只有在讨论VM的性能问题时才有用，例如，与Python相比，Ruby被认为更慢，因为它是一种解释型语言，不像Python——换句话说，上下文就是一切。

他们之间没有真正的区别，人们只是遵循创造者选择的惯例。

不，它们并不都解释字节码。

Python只在运行pypy时解释字节码。否则，它将被编译成C并在该级别上进行解释。

Java编译为字节码。

HotSpot运行时被称为虚拟机，而CPython仅仅被称为解释器，这可能是有原因的

首先，CPython只是普通的、基于栈的字节码解释器。你向它输入Python操作码，CPython内部的软件堆栈机器就会计算你的代码，就像普通的解释器一样。

The Java HotSpot runtime is different. First and foremost, Java has 3 Just-in Time Compilers, C1, C2, and an experimental one that isn't in use yet. But that's not the main reason. The Interpreter inside the JVM is a very special kind of Interpreter called a Template Interpreter. Instead of just executing bytecode directly in a massive opcode switch case statement like CPython (And really almost every other interpreter does) does, the Template Interpreter inside the JVM contains an enormous arraylist. What does it contain? Key-value pairs of bytecodes and native CPU instructions! The arraylist is empty on startup and is filled with mappings of bytecodes pointing to native machine language to be directly run on the hardware just before your application starts up, what this means is that the "Interpreter" inside the JVM isn't actually an Interpreter at all- It's actually a discount Compiler! When Java bytecode is run, the "Interpreter" simply maps the input bytecode directly to native machine language and executes the native mapping directly, rather than implementing it in software. I'm not exactly sure why the JVM was made this way, but I suspect it was to easily execute "Interpreted" Code together with JIT Compiled Code seamlessly, and for speed/performance. If you pitted the JVM without JIT against CPython or most other interpreters it would still probably come out ahead of them, in virtue of its ingenious design which to my knowledge no other language has used before.