Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do computations actually work?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 11:46:01 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <10119o9$1u1o3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4> <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org> <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me> <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me> <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me> <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me> <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me> <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <100onkd$3t5cb$1@dont-email.me> <100rti1$jfld$1@dont-email.me> <100so11$p071$5@dont-email.me> <100un10$1a22r$1@dont-email.me> <100vasi$1d5lg$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 10:46:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdaa97a52dbedafba916f70cac401cf3";
	logging-data="2033411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jjDMMfRJu6X9XzYkpT5nz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LxDEtKFLtuUJQGxzMK0vtMumt8Q=
Bytes: 3315

On 2025-05-25 14:53:06 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/25/2025 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-24 15:18:57 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/24/2025 2:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-23 02:47:40 +0000, olcott changed the subject to
>>>>> How do computations actually work?
>>>> 
>>>> Each computation works differently. It does not matter how it works as
>>>> long as there are instructions that fully specify how that computation
>>>> shall be performed.
>>> 
>>> All termination analyzers are required to report on the
>>> behavior that their input finite string specifies.
>> 
>> To report correctly. Though the input string to a termination analyzer
>> usially is incomlete: the input string usually specifies different
>> behavours depending on the input that is not shown to the termination
>> analyzer, and the analyzer's report must cover all of them.
>> 
>> A partial termination analyzer may fail to report but is not allowed
>> to report incorrectly.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> "return" statement final halt state, only liars
> will disagree.

Again a straw man deception. Where reasonable people disgraee is the
relevance of that claim. The behavour specified by DDD does reach the
final return from DDD. Whether HHH can simulate that part of the
behaviour is irrelevant. Even without the simjlation HHH decides
correctly if and only if it determines and reports that DDD halts.

-- 
Mikko