Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes 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: References: 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 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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