Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 12:33:24 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v12b14$fbko$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me> <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org> <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org> <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org> <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org> <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0oban$1o3b$1@news.muc.de> <v0oce3$1q3aq$4@dont-email.me> <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de> <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me> <v0oh7g$1o3b$3@news.muc.de> <v0olhv$1sgeo$1@dont-email.me> <v0oobd$1o3b$4@news.muc.de> <v0or07$1tmga$1@dont-email.me> <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me> <v0rsbv$2m1nf$8@i2pn2.org> <v0sgcm$2varu$3@dont-email.me> <v0vmvu$209h$3@news.muc.de> <v10md7$ese$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 11:33:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e950f8b0bce7f88a56c0d8ce118c525";
	logging-data="503448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AHoTBg1/EkozmSKB6NoJa"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qjTjgFusLGLr+eWgh8KaxY07Kwg=
Bytes: 3628

On 2024-05-02 18:35:19 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/2/2024 4:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
>> 
>> [ .... ]
>> 
>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} to
>>>>> the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we define halting
>>>>> otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as halting.
>> 
>> 
>>>> Why?
>> 
>>>> That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
>> 
>> 
>>> Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an
>>> aborted simulation ends up in.
>> 
>> Only through your twisted reasoning.  For your information, I hold to the
>> standard definition of final state, i.e. one which has no state following
>> it.  An aborted simulation is in some state, and that state is a final
>> one, since there is none following it.
>> 
>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
>>>> isn't a final state.
>> 
>>>> Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
>>>> you get into that issue.
>> 
>>> "The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
>>> Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
>> 
>> Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
>> anything but clear.
> 
> When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of three
> non-halting behavior patterns
> (a) Simple Infinite loop
> (b) Simple Infinite Recursion
> (c) Simple Recursive Simulation

Simple recursive simulation is not a non-halting behaviour
if the recursion is not infinite.

-- 
Mikko