Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 16:57:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <pan$e1f0a$e9d372b7$27a3381e$edcd720c@example.com>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v128nt$erc9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me> <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me> <v1549m$2783$1@news.muc.de>
	<v15fc9$17unh$6@dont-email.me> <v15hat$94v$1@news.muc.de>
	<v15hsc$17unh$8@dont-email.me> <v15lk0$1qp4$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v15nta$19ip0$1@dont-email.me> <v15qg3$1qp4$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v15vqo$1bfmh$1@dont-email.me> <v166fj$2oq7$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v168mo$1df60$1@dont-email.me> <v16a6g$2oq7$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v16blg$1e52t$1@dont-email.me> <v16d93$2oq8$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v16eon$1eq05$1@dont-email.me> <v16gir$2oq8$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v16hln$1f7fm$1@dont-email.me> <v16ikg$2oq7$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v16jd1$1fk82$1@dont-email.me> <v16kou$2oq8$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v16l3c$1ftgf$1@dont-email.me> <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me> <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v16tp4$1l8ug$1@dont-email.me> <v17ng9$1qb0a$2@dont-email.me>
	<v1855s$1t4hn$3@dont-email.me>
	<pan$4a240$fbabce06$53cf0225$a0be898f@example.com>
	<v18c5i$1ulkl$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 16:57:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="161138"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4859
Lines: 68

Am Sun, 05 May 2024 11:29:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

> On 5/5/2024 10:42 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 05 May 2024 09:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 05.mei.2024 om 05:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> [please snip your replies a little]
>> 
>>>>>> Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM
>>>>>> except by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for
>>>>>> one thing, it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after
>>>>>> determining that it will simulate this input forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps cannot be said
>>>>> to have simulated those N steps incorrectly on the basis that it
>>>>> could have simulated N+1 steps.
>>>>>
>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops
>>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation.
>>>
>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never stops simulating an
>>> non-halting input?
>> 
>> Correct. Simulating here means producing the exact same behaviour. If
>> it is correct up to a point, it might still make a mistake later.
>> The only way to know is to keep simulating.
>> 
>> 
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
> 
> It is counter-factual that the above must be infinitely simulated to
> correctly determine that it never halts.

But then it is not „simulation”, rather (static) analysis.

-- 
joes