Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:50:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0oban$1o3b$1@news.muc.de>
 <v0oce3$1q3aq$4@dont-email.me> <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:51:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895";
	logging-data="1935055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+49Wl9HtYgueiniq/4OlEB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:y+F50go5dyCquDQ2ngku4Tp5yDc=
In-Reply-To: <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4226

On 4/29/2024 10:23 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 9:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic.
>>>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>> Having been aborted (if such were possible) is merely another final state
>>> for a TM.
> 
>> No it definitely is not.
> 
> In a TM, each state is either a final state or a non-final state.  Are
> you arguing for a third alternative, or do you think that "having been
> aborted" is a non-final state?  If the latter, what state does the TM
> change to next?
> 

Aborted means completely dead as if you pulled the power cord
on your computer.

>> When the payroll system crashes 10% of the way through calculating
>> payroll we cannot say that everyone has been paid.
> 
> Of course not, but it has nevertheless reached a final state, an
> unsatisfactory one, since it is no longer running on the computer.
> 

That is not what "theory of computation" {final state} means.
Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
correctly finished its processing.

>>>> Yet again only rhetoric with no actual reasoning.
>>>> Do you believe:
>>>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason.
>>>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state.
> 
>>> (a) and (b) are identical.  A TM having stopped means it has reached a
>>> final state, and vice versa.
> 
>> No that is incorrect.
> 
> Perhaps, then, you could explain the difference between (a) and (b).
> 
>> In software engineering terms halting means reaching a final
>> state and terminating normally.
> 
> "Halting" is about turing machines. 

Yet any C function that implements a computable function is
isomorphic to some TM.

> I don't think you've ever said what
> you mean by "terminating normally".  

Standard term of the art from software engineering.

> A turing machine either reaches a
> final state or it doesn't.  There is no concept of "normal termination"
> in a TM.
> 

A Google search of: "simulating termination analyzer"
or "simulating halt decider" only brings up me.

Within this brand new idea then there is such an idea of
abnormal termination.


>>>> (c) Neither.
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer