Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 09:04:44 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <101jied$33i6m$3@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me> <101hdjt$21ui2$1@dont-email.me>
 <101iheg$2h3fr$1@dont-email.me>
 <1e5e5837ae9e60daa16e5fef3693ff424c1049d2@i2pn2.org>
 <101j60c$2urhr$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:04:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95a9531e68f194400750b6c68a8878ba";
	logging-data="3262678"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19t2IZSv4ZJJVBRg/SQ60q5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xaWhPgSboei2lWKVIzzsC1rPb5c=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101j60c$2urhr$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4007

Op 02.jun.2025 om 05:32 schreef olcott:
> On 6/1/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/1/25 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2025 6:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-30 15:41:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines),
>>>>>>>> simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can 
>>>>>>>> approximate one
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge a simulated input
>>>>>>> always has the exact same behavior as the directly
>>>>>>> executed input unless this simulated input calls
>>>>>>> its own simulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real
>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the same as saying a function with infinite
>>>>> recursion must have the same behavior as a function
>>>>> without infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> A function does not have a behaviour. A function has a value for
>>>> every argument in its domain.
>>>>
>>>> A function is not recursive. A definition of a function can be
>>>> recursive. There may be another way to define the same function
>>>> without recursion.
>>>>
>>>> A definition of a function may use infinite recursion if it is also
>>>> defined how that infinite recursion defines a value.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, from the meaning of "simulation" follows that a simulation
>>>> of a behaviour is (at least in some sense) similar to the real
>>>> behaviour. Otherwise no simulation has happened.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>
>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't, as HHH is defined to abort and simulation after finite 
>> time, and thus only does finite simulation.
>>
> 
> See right there you changed the words.
> I said nothing about finite or infinite simulation.
> You said that I am wrong about something that I didn't even say.
> 

Of course misleading words must be changed.
Your words suggest an infinite recursion, because they are followed by 
the inability to reach the end.
This erroneous suggestion can only be explained by adding the verifiable 
correct words that there is only a finite recursion, so that it is shown 
that is a failure of HHH when it does not reach the final 'ret'.