Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:51:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a63953da7a589e9e8b4a6e1cb3d3602c70a06343@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> <101jhvm$33lln$1@dont-email.me>
 <101kfl3$3bfvj$4@dont-email.me> <101m9ps$3srp4$1@dont-email.me>
 <101nltk$7qau$10@dont-email.me> <101osq3$mlio$1@dont-email.me>
 <101ps65$ta6v$8@dont-email.me> <102388o$3m38c$1@dont-email.me>
 <10238ui$3m1s3$2@dont-email.me> <1028mke$1405v$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029p1p$1ah2f$13@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:51:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4142857"; 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: <1029p1p$1ah2f$13@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/10/25 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-08 06:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/8/2025 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-04 16:27:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:28:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 15:23:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-01 21:41:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter whether a particular simulation does or 
>>>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It completely matters. DDD correctly simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>> proves the exact behavior that the input to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It proves nothing without a proof that DDD is correctly 
>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have shown that proof too many times and people
>>>>>>> denied the very obvious verified facts of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have never shown any proof of anything. But a verifiable and 
>>>>>> verified
>>>>>> fact is that DDD halts. An obvious conseqence of that fact is that 
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> report that means 'DDD does not halt' is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I provide proof that you cannot understand
>>>>> this does not mean that I did not provide proof.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does.
>>>
>>> What I just said is a truism, tautology, self-evident truth.
>>
>> No, it is not. It was an attempt to deceive with a false ad hominem.
>>
> 
> When self-evident truth are not understood they remain
> self-evident. If you want to try to disagree with a
> self-evident truth you must proceed through the statement
> one point at a time and point out exactly how and why
> this point seems to be incorrect.

Since your "self-evedent truth" is talking about things that are 
category errors for the properties they are talking about, the 
statement, by the actual meaning of the words is non-sense.

You have admitted and stipulated that DDD is NOT A PROGRAM, but is only 
the code of the C function DDD. As such, it CAN NOT be simulated or 
executed past that call instruction, and thus doesn't have a property of 
the category "Halting/Non-Halting".

Since it si IMPOSSIBLE to correctly simulate an input that isn't a 
program (as the domain for correct simulation is the domain of 
representations of programs) your statement is just based on a false 
premise.

> 
> Even the stupidest bot that ever existed: "Eliza"
> could baselessly disagree. It could spit out disagreement
> as boiler-plate English sentences that it does not understand.
> 

And you are proving yourself stupider than that, as you keep on 
repeating claims proven to be category errors.

This shows that you just don't care about what is actually truth, 
putting you into the same category as climate change and election deniers.