Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:07:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v0vl3o$209h$1@news.muc.de>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me>   <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>
Injection-Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:07:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="65841"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 3472
Lines: 54

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:

[ .... ]

>>> A simulating termination analyzer is not the same thing as a UTM.

>> At the moment, on this newsgroup, it's a meaningless term.  You seem to
>> have used it merely as a synonym for halting decider in the past.  Yet
>> you fail to say what you mean by it, if you mean something different.

>>> Within my brand new idea of a {simulating termination analyzer}
>>> there is the idea of abnormal termination.

>> It's unlikely to be a brand new idea, whatever it might be, since you
>> aren't familiar with the literature and so most likely have come up with
>> somebody else's old idea.

[ .... ]

>> You've failed, repeatedly, to address the points I've been making in my
>> last few posts, so it seems that you have accepted them.  In particular,
>> you have accepted that "having been aborted" is indeed a final state for
>> a turing machine or a program.

> All of the "points" that you have been making were entirely anchored in
> your ignorance about what "simulating termination analyzer" are and how
> they work.

I think it much more likely that there's no such thing as a "simulating
termination analyzer".  I.e. there's no theory about it, no interesting
results, no use for it, or anything like that.  I've asked you several
times to define this object, other people have asked you too, yet you
fail to do so.  Producing a few lines of scrappy C code is not anything
like producing a definition.

"Simulating termination analyzer" probably just means halt decider.  We
all know there's no such thing.

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

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).