Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:13:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a56029df728a6a49400d608872962e96f5dfaabd@i2pn2.org>
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, 2 Jun 2025 11:21:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2951518"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <101j60c$2urhr$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4033
Lines: 76

On 6/1/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

But you mean infinitly recursive, or you have no evidence of non-halting.

Or, are you admitting that your "recursive simulation" isn't actually 
proof of non-halting.

After all, if program x called a function simulate4, which simulates up 
to  4 instructions and returns whether it reached a final state, would 
you call that "recursive simulation" and proof of non-haltling behavior?

I guess you are just showing that you world is built on lies and errors.