Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 10:47:05 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <103oa6b$oscg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me>
 <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h07f$2q86f$3@dont-email.me> <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me>
 <103l67e$3ul4b$1@dont-email.me> <103legd$bn2$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m9n1$6dce$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 10:47:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a913bf74c5ebd1cd399f4c04f70f7a4a";
	logging-data="815504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ld7Q92eriLa1jdAtrh9E2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Yvo2JPLAlnAFoOhIxHr4eUkG17g=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <103m9n1$6dce$4@dont-email.me>

Op 27.jun.2025 om 16:26 schreef olcott:
> On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>
>>>> In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
>>>> possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
>>>> halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
>>>> count as non-haltign.
>>>
>>> Halting means reaching a final halt state.
>>
>> And non-halting means unlimited execution.
>>
> 
> Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
> final halt state. If it was not that way then smashing a
> computer with a sledge hammer would "prove" that an infinite
> loop halts.
Not at all. The measure is unlimited execution. Otherwise smashing your 
computer with a sledge hammer after 1 second would prove that all 
programs that take more than 1 second are non-halting, because it could 
not reach its final halt state.
Similarly, aborting a simulation before the simulated program of a 
proven halting program can reach its final halt state does not prove 
non-halting behaviour.