Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:32:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <v0tqqs$38pmi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me>
 <v0rsbv$2m1nf$8@i2pn2.org> <v0sgcm$2varu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0t8od$2p3ri$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 18:32:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f141e693eb79f63ff43fad97c070154";
	logging-data="3434194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19husFeu94n/2NCN67nO4Fs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VmFf/zrf5O2fayKxdCxsz8tmEnw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0t8od$2p3ri$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6239

On 5/1/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
>>>
>>
>> Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an 
>> aborted simulation ends up in.
>>
>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>  > You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
>>  > isn't a final state.
> 
> But if Halting is to be a property of the Machine itself, and not about 
> the decider (and when it decides to abort) then "abnormal termination" 
> needs to be something that the machine itself actually does.
> 
> As has been pointed out, Turing Machines do not "abnormally terminate"
> 

Until someone invents the idea of a simulating termination analyzer
that operates on Turing machine Descriptions. Prior to this we only
had halt and loops.

> What you have defined is simulations having an "abnormal termination" 
> because the 'Termination analyzer" has just decided to abort its 
> simulation there, and thus it is a property of the analyzer applied to 
> the machine, not the machine itself.
> 



> 
>>
>>> Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, 
>>> do you get into that issue.
>>>
>>
>> "The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
>> Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
>>
>> The whole field of *termination analysis* is directly related
>> to halting.
> 
> Yes, but related doesn't mean the same as. My first impression of what 
> that workshop was talking about looking at various subclasses of 
> programs, and what can be said about them.
> 

When a simulating termination analyzer is applied to the halting 
problem's counter-example input then STA becomes 100% relevant
to the halting problem.

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