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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 11:22:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v18bne$1ulkl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v107il$3t543$1@dont-email.me>
 <v128nt$erc9$1@dont-email.me> <v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> <v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1549m$2783$1@news.muc.de> <v15fc9$17unh$6@dont-email.me>
 <v15hat$94v$1@news.muc.de> <v15hsc$17unh$8@dont-email.me>
 <v15lk0$1qp4$2@i2pn2.org> <v15nta$19ip0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v15qg3$1qp4$6@i2pn2.org> <v15vqo$1bfmh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v166fj$2oq7$1@i2pn2.org> <v168mo$1df60$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16a6g$2oq7$2@i2pn2.org> <v16blg$1e52t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16d93$2oq8$1@i2pn2.org> <v16eon$1eq05$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16gir$2oq8$2@i2pn2.org> <v16hln$1f7fm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16ikg$2oq7$3@i2pn2.org> <v16jd1$1fk82$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16kou$2oq8$3@i2pn2.org> <v16l3c$1ftgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org> <v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org> <v16tp4$1l8ug$1@dont-email.me>
 <v17ng9$1qb0a$2@dont-email.me> <v1855s$1t4hn$3@dont-email.me>
 <pan$4a240$fbabce06$53cf0225$a0be898f@example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 18:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="2053781"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19n3XqAOH87Ua1wqtlzwtjq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lC2fELGTUvORWTD0fFrzUstzpPI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <pan$4a240$fbabce06$53cf0225$a0be898f@example.com>
Bytes: 4815

On 5/5/2024 10:42 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 05 May 2024 09:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 
>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 05.mei.2024 om 05:17 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> [please snip your replies a little]
> 
>>>>> Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM except
>>>>> by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for one
>>>>> thing, it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after determining
>>>>> that it will simulate this input forever.
>>>>>
>>>> None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps cannot be said to
>>>> have simulated those N steps incorrectly on the basis that it could
>>>> have simulated N+1 steps.
>>>>
>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops
>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation.
>>
>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never stops simulating an
>> non-halting input?
> 
> Correct. Simulating here means producing the exact same behaviour.
> If it is correct up to a point, it might still make a mistake later.
> The only way to know is to keep simulating.
> 

That sounds screwy when the input computes factorial(5)

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