Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- What does halting
 mean?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:08:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4u76n$ec9m$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$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$1@dont-email.me> <v4tf26$ddeo$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v4tfsj$1oosn$1@dont-email.me> <v4tgg7$ddeo$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v4th4c$1oosn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:08:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="471350"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3524
Lines: 45

Am Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:51:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/18/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote:

>>> When such a UTM has been adapted to only simulate the first ten states
>>> of its input TMD, then every simulated TMD with more than ten states
>>> did not terminate normally.

>> Terminating is a property of the actual machine, and not a simulation
>> of it.
This.
> Thus according to your faulty reasoning when the source-code of a C
> program is simulated by interpreter this is mere nonsense gibberish
> having nothing to do what the behavior that this source-code specifies.
YOUR partial decider makes everything halt, even that which doesn't.
So yes, it can't simulate infinite loops.

>> You could say the SIMULATION didn't terminate normally, but you can't
>> say the machine didn't or even the Turing Machine Description, as you
>> could give that exact same TMD to a real UTM and find out the actual
>> behaviof or the input.
> Sure you can otherwise interpreters of source-code would be a bogus
> concept.
When I write an infinite loop, I want it to be interpreted as an
infinite loop. Your H0 is bogus.

>> You just have lost track of the defintions of what is REALITY (the
>> actual behavior of the machine) and what is just imagination.
> Not I but you.
The map is not the territory. The simulation is not the machine.

>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when
>>> H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion,
>>> and DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can
>>> terminate normally.
>> Which doesn't mean the program DDD needs to be abort to have it halt.
> The verified that that it does need to be aborted contradicts your
> nonsense to the contrary.
[The verification that it ... ?]
If H0 halts, so does DDD (which only calls it).

-- 
joes