Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting --- incorrect either way
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:08:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <91d435dc527c477cba61fb9cad8ada06120f9c01@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6o140$2bop2$1@dont-email.me> <v6osn2$2fuva$13@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:08:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2973854"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6osn2$2fuva$13@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3268
Lines: 60

On 7/11/24 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/11/2024 2:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:58 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct 
>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>> would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>>>>
>>>>>> Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
>>>>>> program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?
>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a finite time.
>>>>> So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, when it 
>>>>> does
>>>>> not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a simulator
>>>>> should not abort a non-halting program either.
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words he is saying that when you do
>>> 1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.
>>>
>>
>> That is not what I said.
> 
> What you said logically entails that a correct simulation
> of 1 step counts as a correct simulation of 0 steps.

And since the only "correct simulation" would be of ALL the stes,



> 
>> What I said is that if a program needs two steps for a simulation, it 
>> is incorrect to simulate only one step and then abort and report it 
>> will never halt.
>> English seems to be a difficult language for you.
> 
> I am talking about the correct simulation of N steps and you
> are trying to get away with saying there is no such thing
> as the correct simulation of N steps. That is either terribly
> confused or dishonest, yet incorrect either way.
> 

But the correct simulation of N steps is NOT the correct simulation, 
which implies of ALL steps.

You have just been caught lying by being imprecise and claiming two 
different meanigs.