Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:20:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <101prp8$ta6v$7@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> <101jiah$33qt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <101khgk$3bfvj$7@dont-email.me> <101m9fs$3sq20$1@dont-email.me>
 <101nlof$7qau$9@dont-email.me> <fbJ%P.1200048$lZjd.1117418@fx05.ams4>
 <101nnp4$8rb8$3@dont-email.me> <101osj4$mjmb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:20:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e2917af8031656e2bdefa3bdb47b104";
	logging-data="960735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zpV2eokislIZJDZuEMvUD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ga+E9eIaIRj5sjbtU8E9LMUONdY=
In-Reply-To: <101osj4$mjmb$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250604-4, 6/4/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/4/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-03 21:00:20 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/3/2025 3:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 15:25:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2025 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-02 15:55:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 03:32:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again you are trying a sraw man deception. RIchard Damon did not
>>>>>>> change your words, he only wrote his own. He did not claim that you
>>>>>>> said anything about "finite" or "infinite" but that you should
>>>>>>> understand the difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike most people here I do understand that not possibly reaching a
>>>>>> final halt state *is* non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand it correctly. Whether a computation is halting is
>>>>> a feature of the computation, not a particular exectuion of that
>>>>> coputation.
>>>>> A halting computation is a halting computation even if its 
>>>>> execution is
>>>>> discontinued before reaching the final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> DDD(); // Do you understand that the HHH(DDD) that this DDD
>>>> }        // calls is only accountable for the behavior of its
>>>> // input, and thus NOT accountable for the behavior // of its
>>>> caller?
>>>
>>> We have been over this before.
>>>
>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of
>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to
>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no execution
>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>>>
>>
>> I know that, you know that:
>> 80 other people don't know that.
>> All the textbooks don't know that.
>>
>> All the textbooks expect HHH to report on the
>> behavior of its caller.
> 
> Can you quote even one textbook saying "HHH shall report on the behaviour
> of its caller" ?
> 

Textbooks require halt deciders to report on the
behavior of the direct execution of their input.

When-so-ever DDD() is directly executed the only
HHH that exists is the HHH(DDD) that it calls.

int main()
{
   DDD(); // Calls HHH(DDD)
}

This means that everyone that says that HHH(DDD)
must report on the behavior of the direct execution
of DDD() requires HHH to report on the behavior of
its caller. *Even if this is possible, it is not allowed*

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer