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: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:37:11 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v0r378$2hgdi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oh7g$1o3b$3@news.muc.de> <v0olhv$1sgeo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oobd$1o3b$4@news.muc.de> <v0or07$1tmga$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:37:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e8f2d04fc5eb9e9e5c77fdb7a0969d3";
	logging-data="2671026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QeOk+SmlZfEzmQdbEvYnx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oA2YeXnP/5VA+sH1QPbiGmZm/cA=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5143

Op 30.apr.2024 om 17:18 schreef olcott:
> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/29/2024 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> A turing machine has no power cord to pull.  You didn't answer my 
>>>>>> point;
>>>>>> you evaded it.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is.  What do you think "final state" means, and how is 
>>>>>> "having
>>>>>> been aborted" not one?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
>>>>>>> correctly finished its processing.
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine.
>>>>
>>>>> In other words when a TM computes the sum of 2 + 3 and derives
>>>>> 999999999999999999999999999 then that is just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be idiotic.  A TM that gets that answer from those starting
>>>> conditions isn't calculating their sum; it's doing something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ONLY way that we can determine if any computation is correct
>>> is when it meets its specification. When a TM is specified to
>>> calculate the sum of a pair of decimal integers and it derives
>>> any decimal integer other than 5 from inputs 2,3 then it is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Changing the subject. The question is not whether it is correct, but 
>> whether it halts. Incorrect programs exist and even those program may 
>> halt.
>>
> 
> I had to address this:
> 
> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>  > There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine.  It is either
>  > running, or has reached a final state.  In the TM equivalent of "core
>  > dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
> 

Yes, he did that because olcott changed subject from halting to 'halting 
with a correct result'. Does it mean that olcott is now no longer 
working on a halting decider, but a '"correct halting" decider', or even 
a 'correct decider'?