Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:15:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:15:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e18070faf38e3938218949b4b017f26c";
	logging-data="2665720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6siZL+AcFnc6iP0k1MYq3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uws2YKicphYaUeRrgqm4bZ/Wi+4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 4050

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> I would indeed be charmed if you would address it, but you have evaded
> it, as you have evaded most of the points I made yesterday.
> 
> Note that I said there is no correctness _IN_ a turing machine.  This is
> independent of whether or not that turing machine is useful for some
> external purpose.
> 
> Note also that you wilfully distorted my meaning by trimming.  The full
> context was:
> 
>>>> Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
>>>> correctly finished its processing.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Your use of the word "correctly" in "correctly finished its processing"
> is wrong.  A turing machine is either running or it's finished its
> processing.  From the point of view of the tm, there is no "correct" or
> "incorrect" associated with the latter condition; it's simply reached a
> final state.
> 
> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a final
> state.
> 

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} to
the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we define halting
otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as halting.

>> -- 
>> 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