| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v1n8jr$1u6so$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Linz's proofs and other undecidable decision problems [LP as basis] [Mike Terry] Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 11:00:59 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 38 Message-ID: <v1n8jr$1u6so$1@dont-email.me> References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <urogvi$1aeb$1@news.muc.de> <87v868ksuy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uromc0$5stj$1@dont-email.me> <uroob5$6c32$1@dont-email.me> <urpn7p$fetm$3@dont-email.me> <urq96s$m03b$9@dont-email.me> <urqmeg$p5i6$1@dont-email.me> <urqmv9$p6un$1@dont-email.me> <c2c69a25eecce5dc88cc3a979ee5cf9e4af2b67f.camel@gmail.com> <urqqo0$q1gd$1@dont-email.me> <94aaf99a4347e3fce0773fdd12001c3f03e3c1ea.camel@gmail.com> <urqrlk$q7ed$1@dont-email.me> <65a324cfb867c0219344ca9a767846930119784c.camel@gmail.com> <urqsr6$qgjj$1@dont-email.me> <urqviq$qrnj$2@dont-email.me> <a24a41a5fd0631d7dcca11af5bdc9819e3812cc7.camel@gmail.com> <urr0g7$r6eq$1@dont-email.me> <urregj$cbpo$2@i2pn2.org> <urrirc$12055$3@dont-email.me> <urrkup$cbpo$7@i2pn2.org> <urrrnf$13jnk$1@dont-email.me> <ROKdnSw4i6cUjn_4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <urt4qb$1bs5i$3@dont-email.me> <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v1loa5$1g957$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 10:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cce3bd829b6ab1f4bd7e36d0dd125ef"; logging-data="2038680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Pf+5twMN/ihCW51Fg1o0D" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:mv5R6M1JoATNPhSBnu8raeDgReI= Bytes: 3380 On 2024-05-10 18:16:37 +0000, olcott said: > On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape contents >> etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there. >> >> What isn't allowed is the simulated machine altering its own behaviour >> by accessing data outside of its own state. (I.e. accessing data from >> its parent simulators state.) >> >> While an "active-simulator" [my own term] is at liberty to combine >> straight simulation with add-on "enhancements" that extend the >> functionality of the simulated machine, in doing so it would no >> longer be a simulator in the sense you need it to be. So you >> mustn't do this! In principle an incorrect simulation is permissible. However, to prove that the result inferred from an incorrect simulation is correct may be impossible. > *You did not provide complete reasoning justifying this proclamation* > *You did not provide complete reasoning justifying this proclamation* > *You did not provide complete reasoning justifying this proclamation* The provided reasoning is sufficient. You can continue reasoning from that if you want more. > Because the simulator must perform every detail of the simulation of > the underlying machine it can watch every single state change of this > underlying machine and this does not change the behavior of the > simulated input AT ALL (relative to not watching the state changes). Yes, that is a correct interpretation. -- Mikko