Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- What does halting
 mean?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 22:16:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4tf26$ddeo$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4qe53$a0nm$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me> <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me> <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me> <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me> <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 02:16:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="439768"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2975
Lines: 48

On 6/18/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/18/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote:
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt.
> 
>> DDD halts iff H0 halts.
> 
> Halting is a technical term-of-the-art that corresponds
> to terminates normally. Because Turing machines are
> abstract mathematical objects there has been no notion
> of abnormal termination for a Turing machine.

No "normally" as Turing Machine have no "abnormal terminatiom"

You just don't understand what they are.

> 
> We can derive a notion of abnormal termination for Turing
> machines from the standard terms-of-the-art.

How?

> 
> Some TM's loop and thus never stop running, this is classical
> non-halting behavior. UTM's simulate Turing machine descriptions.
> This is the same thing as an interpreter interpreting the
> source-code of a program.
> 
> A UTM can be adapted so that it only simulates a fixed number
> of iterations of an input that loops. When this UTM stops
> simulating this Turing machine description we cannot correctly
> say that this looping input halted.
> 

And then are no longer UTMs, and YES, if a machine based on such am 
modifed UTM (so it is no long a UTM) when the UTM stops simulating, we 
can not say the input halted, nor can we say it didn't halt.

The not-a-UTM just came to a no-answer state.

The answer will be provided by useing an ACTUAL UTM that keeps on going, 
or the direct execution of the machine,

You are just stuck in your idea that Lies are sometimes ok.